The Only Republican in San Francisco

Steyn on demography and the end of the West

I read Mark Steyn’s sobering piece in The New Criterion a few days back and thankfully, it has been released to a larger audience via the Wall Street Journal. It really took me aback when I first read it, and it’s something that will likely stick with me for a while. Read the whole thing, I’ll wait.

(I found the WSJ version more readable. By the way, Steyn is not for the faint of heart.)

A variety of bloggers are looking at different parts, and Steyn makes his case far better than I can recite. I will focus on Steyn’s points that liberals are really taking themselves out of the argument here. In a nutshell, the key battlegrounds on the left (global warming, CIA leaks, even abortion) are ephemera compared to the observable realities of the near future.

Well, here's my prediction for 2032: unless we change our ways the world faces a future . . . where the environment will look pretty darn good. If you're a tree or a rock, you'll be living in clover. It's the Italians and the Swedes who'll be facing extinction and the loss of their natural habitat.

...

If any of those women marching for their "reproductive rights" still have babies, they might like to ponder demographic realities: A little girl born today will be unlikely, at the age of 40, to be free to prance around demonstrations in Eurabian Paris or Amsterdam chanting "Hands off my bush!"

He calls these issues “secondary impulses” -- things that comfortable people concern themselves with when their primary needs are assured. It is essentially an argument around Maslow’s hierarchy.

I have often wondered why, with much of the world unable to transcend the first two levels of Maslow’s pyramid, so many well-meaning people expend such disproportionate amounts of energy on things that really don’t matter. Organic foods. Scooter Libby.

Frivolity is a danger of rich and comfortable societies, and I am certainly guilty of it. But I remain hungry to improve my standing on that pyramid, as everyone should. There are much hungrier people waiting in the wings.

Frankly, I do not think the future is as gloomy or dramatic as Steyn imagines. Forces such as India and China are much more fundamental and are a great bulwark against what he describes. (Islamists seem to know this too.)

The U.S., and the globalizing free-trade world, are the best hope for climbing that pyramid and peacefully integrating diverse cultures. Steyn asks if and how western culture will continue to raise people up, and therefore save itself.

Update: The Solid Surfer takes a closer look.

More about Mitt

In a previous post, I hooked my very preliminary wagon to Mitt Romney for 2008. James Taranto has a new very thoughtful and thorough piece on Romney here.

Mitt’s candidacy will basically depend on whether the Republicans decide they are a conservative party or not. If not, they will go with a Giuliani or a McCain, but both of them will have trouble with the base, IMHO. I don’t think they will bring out the big bucks.

Some have speculated that Romney’s Mormonism will be a problem for his candidacy, but I don’t think so. On the left, religion-hating bigots wouldn’t vote for a Republican in any case. On the Christian right, while some may not entirely approve of Mormonism in general, I think Romney’s values will align quite well with theirs. He is quite open about his faith, but only mentions it when asked.

For the mainstream Republicans (which include free-marketeers like yours truly and family-values proponents), he will be extremely attractive.

He has shown an impressive ability to govern as a conservative in an overwhelmingly liberal state. He comes from a business background, with a great emphasis on analytics and outcomes. And, as far as I can tell, he does not triangulate, like a certain presumed Democratic candidate.

Update: The Dems are concerned. That’s a good sign. Perhaps I will place an early bet.

Update 2: Professor Bainbridge jokingly worries that Mitt’s biggest shortcoming is an absence of pleasurable vices... :)

Rabbi Gellman on Iraq

This is the first I’ve heard of Rabbi Marc Gellman, though a quick Googling reveals that he does some interesting stuff.

In this article, he describes his support for the war in Iraq, and I agree with many of his points. I am not a religious person but have great respect, perhaps even admiration, for those with faith. Rabbi Gellman’s most important point, and one that many don’t want to hear, is that this is a war for human rights -- for Jews, for Kurds, and for the greater Middle East.

There are many things that I think when I hear folks comparing Iraq to Vietnam. The first is, wow, this person hasn’t thought much about either war. The second is, is that wishful thinking? The third is, World War II is a much better comparison.

In that war, the US decided to go abroad to combat a truly racist and fascist regime, one that hoped to enslave a continent, and to establish ethnic purity. In the present day, the attempt at enslavement is worldwide and religious purity is the motivation. Just as force was necessary against the Nazis, force is necessary against a new and fundamentalist form of fascism.

(It is symbolic, but not necessary, to point out that Jews were among the prime targets for both movements.)

I’ll go a little further. The political patterns in the current war are much more similar to WWII than in Vietnam. For example, a continental European instinct for appeasement, and the tragic results.

And, unlike during Vietnam, there is no substantial anti-war movement in this country. In the case of Vietnam, the protests came at late in the conflict, as the casualties mounted and a loss became possible.

In the current war, protests came at the beginning of the conflict, prior to substantial losses, and diminished quickly. They had no political force. They might have even helped Bush, since they alienated huge numbers of people (like, say, NYC commuters).

I’m sure this will make many people’s hair stand up straight, but an anti-war “movement” is a journalistic fantasy. There are plenty of people opposed to the war but no serious counter-argument has emerged.

Bush has compared the current war with the war against communism, but that plays into the Vietnam comparison. Bush would serve himself politically by invoking WWII instead...

Update: looks like my post has been noticed by MSNBC, thanks to Technorati.