USA

The Disunited States of America

by


Dean Barnett writes movingly about his personal experience on 9/11/2001. And
he concludes with this:

IT HAS BECOME A TRITE LAMENT that 9/11 brought us together, and it’s a
shame that since then we’ve come apart. But 9/11 brought us together because
of two transitory emotions – sadness and rage. Once those emotions calmed
down, once our open wounds turned into scars, it was inevitable that our
differences would resurface.

When the flags came out in the aftermath of 9/11, they didn’t signify a
consensus on where we would go from there. They symbolized a consensus that we
were all in pain, all anguished. When the time came to move on, disagreements
inevitably (and not improperly) came regarding exactly how we should move on.

Even though a thorough review of 9/11, including both its lead-up and
aftermath, won’t provide an obvious path forward that everyone will agree on,
there are some valuable lessons we can draw from that awful day. Looking back,
we can clearly see the remorseless murderers that our enemies are – that
knowledge is instructive. And we can also see that they are numerous. That,
too, is important to take into account.

But the most important lesson we can take from 9/11 is this: We must take
every possible step to ensure never again.
Never again will we allow ourselves to feel the way we did that
day. Never again will we be so blind to storm clouds
as they gather. Never again will we choose to believe
comforting lies rather than disquieting truths.

9/11 didn’t bring us together. It’s true that in the immediate
aftermath of the event that we all felt sadness and rage. But not about the same
things.

Read more

Nixon: “Screw ‘Em”

by

Mark Safranski has had two good posts about Nixon, here and here, and promised one or two more. Nixon is one of my pet obsessions.

These posts reminded me of an anecdote about Nixon from R. Emmett Tyrrell, Jr.�s book The Conservative Crack-Up, which came out in 1992. Tyrrell was pretty astute in its prognostication, though he failed to foresee the 1994 takeover of the House � �Newt Gingrich� does not appear in his index. The book is mostly a backward look at the rise of the Conservative movement, focusing on an idiosyncratic mix of interesting figures whom Tyrrell had known — Reagan, Irving Kristol, Clare Booth Luce, Malcolm Muggeridge, Luigi Barzini. I think Tyrrell lost his way during the Clinton years, after foolishly moving from beautiful Bloomington, Indiana to the snakepit on the Potomac, and devoting the entire period to unproductive scandal-mongering. But “Crack-Up” is a good book, and there are copies literally selling for a quarter.

Here is Tyrell on Nixon:

The only glimmer I ever caught of the RN that prowled through Liberal nightmares came while we were riding along the East River Drive in the back of his ancient armored limousine. He was silently peering out on a bleak expanse of the river. We were on the last lap of the 1980 election. Republicans were in a sweat over reports of an impending hostage swap between Jimmy Carter and the Ayatollah. � [O]n the eve of the 1980 election Carter was obviously pursuing a deal. It was in the headlines, and I naturally asked RN what he would do if he were president. �Cut a deal,� he replied impassively. I objected, and sought further explanation. An impatient RN turned to me and repeated: �You cut a deal,� and looking back toward the river he added ��and then you screw �em.� When I asked how, the former president�s impatience enlarged into exasperation: �There are a million ways to screw �em,� he said. �Tell them the deal is tied up on Capitol Hill. Tell them the material is lost in the pipeline.�

I miss Nixon.

Evangelicals and U.S. Foreign Policy

by

I read this paper by Walter Russell Mead in Foreign Affairs last week. It is a typically excellent Mead product.

I think the main thing Mead is trying to accomplish with this article is to show unreligious people who are part of the Northeastern establishment that (1) there is a lot more to the so-called “religious right” than their stereotypes can capture, (2) that the impact of the evangelical community is going to continue to be major, and growing influence on US foreign policy, and (3) that the policies that this community is going to advocate in the future, again, may differ from the stereotypes which the non-religious establishment has of evangelicals. Basically, American evangelicalism is a vast and influential and active world unto itself that most people who are interested in or participate in public policy know nothing about. One friend commented that Mead is being more than fair to these folks. I think he is appropriately fair. But Mead�s goal is not to criticize this community, but to try to explain them to an uncomprehending and hostile audience.

RTWT.

Hurricane Risk: Not Just Florida

by

Here’s a cheerful article about storm risks in South Florida. And of course the journalists who wrote it are only trying to help. It’s not like they are trying to gin up a little pre-hurricane season hysteria to boost circulation and ad revenues! No, nothing like that. Why, they are so thoughtful that they even commissioned experts to run computer simulations of worst-case events in case readers don’t get the point, which is that THEY ARE ALL GOING TO DIE (maybe).

Journalists exaggerating remote probabilities in order to sell papers (or page views) is like dog bites man, but there is a more serious side to this story. While the odds of a major hurricane hitting Miami in any given year are probably low, the likelihood that a storm will cause havoc somewhere on the Gulf or East Coast is much higher.

The issue is not so much (perhaps not at all) global warming as it is population growth along the coasts. The last few decades have seen a great deal of building on beaches and barrier islands. While the risk of disaster is low for any given place and perhaps even any given year, it appears inevitable that some major population centers will eventually go the way of New Orleans. Everybody knows this, of course, but whereas Floridians may be overestimating the risks it seems likely that residents of more-northern states are underestimating them. Long Island, NY, to cite just one example, was devastated by a hurricane in 1938, and there is no reason why it can’t happen again. And if it does happen again the outcome might be a lot worse because Long Island’s population is much bigger now (though the costs would be mitigated by better weather forecasts, medicine and probably construction technology). The fact that it hasn’t occurred recently skews people’s perceptions but probably doesn’t change the real odds.

No part of the USA’s eastern coast, from Massachusetts on South, is immune, no matter how few storms there have been recently. If you live anywhere near the East Coast you should assume that it can happen to you.

UPDATE: This article is probably helpful.