That’s, at best, very imprecise.

France walked out of NATO in 1966 and spent the remaining years of the Cold War triangulating between the Soviet Union and its former allies.

Only since the fall of the Soviet Union has Western Civilization even been able to think about declaring the West a war-free zone.

Huh? I’m not really sure what your definition of “war” and “the West” is, but it is commonly accepted that the West consists of Europe and the US and there haven’t been any wars in these areas since WW2, with the exception of the conflict in former Yugoslavia, happening after the collapse of the USSR.

Perhaps a feeling of Western-wide unity simply isn’t possible unless huge numbers of Europeans are massacred by Islamists.
The Terror War gives us the opportunity to unite for the first time.

Let’s just say, that seeing these two sentences in close proximity gives me a rather eerie feeling (think: FOXNews).

Michael Totten’s first
essay for the new centrist blog Donkelephant is a winner. I believe a good
bit of the left vs. right conflict would be tempered by a better recall of what
I call "true history" (distinct from "media history&q…

Marc, do you remember the admonition to pull the log out of you own eye first? As for wars on other people’s continents, the Europeans are in no position to boast - The Ivory Coast “civil war”, the mess in Rwanda that France triggered, Vietman, as a matter of fact, and and most disgustiing at the moment , the engineered impasse over Darfur. Do you think these are or were alll due simply to European incompetence, or do you think there may have been other reasons? Do you think Sudan’s oil figured at all in France’s calculations concerning Darfur?

The notion that Europe is at peace with the rest of the world is laughable. The rest of the world is not at peace with Europe, as of 7/7. If you think you are so subtly playing the Chinese against the Americans and that is why they are making nice with you for the moment, go find a Chinese-speaker to explain to you what the expression “yi yi zhi yi” means.

Maybe it’s because you live in languages where every sentence has to have a subject, but you seem to think there is a causal link between someone’s intent and the action that ensues. Does Bush and Co. have to have the purest intentions for their actions to result in something good? You have heard of the Law of Unintended Consequences, I hope.

It’s working fine now too for me. Not my machine, so I takes what I gets.

You point out something that ought to be obvious but isn’t. If Europe were unifeid, they’d have something like a common language. They’d be at a level of political integration like China’s. Only someone completely ignorant of European history, like that stupid animal, Ischinger, the German ambassador to the US, would babble on about how the Europeans, unlike the crude Americans, have found a higher way to resolves disputes among “nations” (his term for their tribal states.)

You point out further somethinfg else that should be obvious, the degree of disunity within the US. This is not some artifact of the Civil Rights Era or the evil media. The Civil War didn’t blow up out of nowhere. You English were despising each other when you got here, Puritans loathing Virginia gentlemen and vice versa. We have managed pretty well not only despite that but because of that. We are pre-adapted for just about any eventuality.

Entangling alliances seem worth much less than they cost.

BTW, for those who aren’t even familiar with the old fashion way, or don’t have a Wheel Mouse(shame), at top of IE Browser click VIEW, TEXT SIZE, select size.

BTW TallDave, I actually thought you were being facetious when you listed O’Reily as a centrist. I even laughed at that neat ‘embedded’ bit of fun. You were having some fun with us…..weren’t you?

Michael, your quote above “because we have a common history of peaceful coexistence with one another” may be true in the way that you have not seen an internal conflict on your soil since the Civil War, but being at peace with yourself has not meant being at peace with the rest of the world. Plenty of examples are present where the US intervened openly (Vietnam, Panama, Iraq) and more clandestine (Chili, Nicaragua, …), I can see a certain paradox here.

Being a citizen of Belgium, I am still grateful for the invertention of the US in WW2, without your assistance Europe probably would be very different now. Having said that, it is my belief that governments do not take action out of sheer compassion, there always is a hidden agenda. The interests of the US in Europe simply were too high for the US not to intervene. If we look at how the countries under the US influence changed their way of living, I guess in the long run the war investment has more than paid of.

I was referred here by Instapundit and I like your take on things. Interesting how actual history and perceived history seem to be different. Big dirigible for example; I think it was probably common for certain people who traveled by certain modes of transport to be able to cross Europe untouched. However, I can certainly imagine Jews in Poland and the rest of Eastern Europe having trouble with border crossings. A few palms probably needed greasing.

I also find myself in wholehearted agreement with Tall Dave re: Al Gore taking it to Iraq (or not as the case may be). Thank God for the Bush administration policy of democratizing the Middle East. That’s the American way; not retrenchment or retreat. Gotta give the President credit: we were supposed to have a more “humble” foreign policy when he was elected. I even thought it sounded right at the time. But when we were attacked, our leaders came up with a vision that fits our ideals and actually could work. It was a sea-change in our foreign policy, and deservedly so. Try to be on the side of freedom, always. We see our allies among the former satellites of the Soviet Union because they know what freedom means, having been without it for so long. I’m personally impressed by the President of Latvia, Vaira Vike-Freiberga, a Thatcher-in-the-making indeed. I’ve heard her eloquently support our anti-terror efforts in the same clear way that Tony Blair does.

The media is Leftist/PC biased, but especially anti-authority biased. When the BBC is unwilling to use the term “terrorist” — that is bias.

The USA did not lose any major battles in Vietnam. Yet we lost the war — because the media was against it, and created an intellectual environment saying it was a mistake to fight evil communism there, so the US should leave. When the US left, evil commies took over and, despite no war opposition, proceeded to murder hundreds of thousands in Vietnam, and a couple million in Cambodia.

The media, and the vast majority of Baby Boomers, in opposing the US fight in Vietnam was supporting “anything is better”, and thus accepting genocide. While denying that’s what they favor.

Was it a mistake for the US to leave Vietnam? If resulting genocide doesn’t prove it WAS a mistake, then how can any results ever prove a prior policy is a mistake?

This is relevant to Clinton’s Rwanda strategy: deny genocide, take no action, allow genocide … apologize later. This is the UN’s attitude in Sudan, with Int’l Criminal Court indictments, unenforced, taking the place of real action. [Why is there FAR more press coverage of Abu Ghraib than of Darfur? prolly Leftist press bias; though possibly ratings.]

There is usually more unity in being against something, some policy with bad results, than there is in being FOR something — since every policy has bad results.

Better than asking for unity, truly overrated, is to ask for respect for disagreement and a “loyal opposition”. But again, loyal to what? I hope you remain loyal to the truth about tradeoffs, and try to explain the costs of different policy proposals.

All that ended in 1914 and has yet to return.

As far as waiting for Europe to wake up to the menace which confronts it both internally and externally, there seems little point. Uncle Sam will just have to do the heavy lifting …. again. I suspect that by the time the current dire crisis is over, Europe will be reduced to a condition of negligible importance. Spengler, writing back in 1917, was right, but he conflated The West with Europe - a major error.

But unity is overrated. I remember September 11 pretty well, and I don’t remember being united. There was that intellectual ho’ Sontag telling us how it was all our fault, and the execrable Chomsky (a prof at my alma mater, sorry to say) whining the same tune. Phooey, you can’t wait for unity before you start fighting back.

I watch Fox and the Factor all the time and while I will admit that O’Reilly can be a bully, and is egotistical, I continue to be impressed with his ability to get both sides of an issue out there. He uses guests from all over the political spectrum, including respected bloggers ,and will give them their say if they play by his rules.

I believe that overall he is sincere and that he is center-right. He clearly is not a political partisan.

He enjoys bashing the looney left and the looney right but right now, the looney left is a lot more vocal, or at least gets a lot more attention.

As for the dogfights, nothing on Fox approached the old “Crossfire”.

Try holding down CTRL and scrolling your mouse wheel. That changes the font size. I do this by accident now and then.

Justin,

The whole “overwhelmingly liberal� [media] is a myth plain and simple.
No, I think the Pew polling has put this firmly in the camp of “established fact,” nonspecific comments by Kristol notwithstandng. It found journalists are liberal by 5:1 — 35% liberal to 7% conservative — and that’s by their own admission.

And frankly, it’s people like Ann Coulter who are trying to rip this country in two, so her opinion on where O’Reilly stands politically is of no interest to me.
Regardless, she’s a far right luminary and her opinion carries a lot of weight on the right, but if you don’t like Coulter (she can be a bit shrill), I could cite other conservatives who are equally disdainful of O’Reilly. He’s relatively centrist. Center-right, at least.

As far as Fox News goes, they stomp thier competition because they have more dogfights, period.
Ah, the old “Fox News is Jerry Springer” canard. Doesn’t really hold up; Fox gets more viewers than the three other networks combined and they all have dogfights too. The only real qualitative difference between Fox and the rest of the news is the same one people are always attacking it over: it’s more conservative.

However, the very fact that Brit Hume can be a so called “Fair and Balanced� news anchor the entire week and then be a bonafide conservative commentator on Sunday simply proves that Fox’s ethics are out of whack.
I don’t see why, Dan Rather did the same thing for what, 30 years? No one said anything until he aired a crazy piece based on forged docmuents.

Objectivity is an unattainable goal. No one is objective. Not me, not you, not anyone. What all the news media should do is just admit they’re biased and be honest about which way they tilt while remaining true to the facts. Brit, at least, gives viewers some idea of where he stands by being on the panel.

TallDave, we’ll just to agree to disagree.
I disagree. (Just kidding!) Well, we all have our different viewpoints. I enjoy a vigorous fact-based debate. Something I even learn something.

What browser and video settings are you using? It looks fine on my system.

Only 15 years ago half of Europe was communist.

Interestingly enough, many, perhaps most, of the countries in that half are now among America’s staunchest allies: Poland, Bulgaria, and Albania come to mind. It’s not most of the population, and because of their relatively small populations and relative poverty, they aren’t able to contribute on the scale that the UK or Australia can, but they are very pro-American.

The whole “overwhelmingly liberal” is a myth plain and simple. Bill Kristol himself has said as much in 2000: ‘The press isn’t quite as biased and liberal. They’re actually conservative sometimes,’ Kristol said recently on [CNN's Reliable Sources].

Earlier in 1995 he said the same thing: ‘I admit it,’ Kristol told The New Yorker. ‘The whole idea of the ‘liberal media’ was often used as an excuse by conservatives for conservative failures.’â€Â?

Am I saying that more journos aren’t Dems? No. The numbers prove that out. However, I worked at a Fox affiliate for a time when I was just out of college. I found that a majority of the on air talent, the people actually reading the news and putting the emphasis on particular words are conservative. I will admit that a lot of the below the line talent leans left, but not so much as it affects their ability to strive for objectivity. So whatever liberal bias people think exists gets cancelled out once it’s on air.

And frankly, it’s people like Ann Coulter who are trying to rip this country in two, so her opinion on where O’Reilly stands politically is of no interest to me. And other pundit’s opinions don’t interest me either. And besides, O’Reilly is just a bully so I’d rather see his voice maginalized in favor of somebody who doesn’t threaten people and scream at them.

As far as Fox News goes, they stomp thier competition because they have more dogfights, period. It’s classic marketing. Claim you’re the outsider standing up for truth, justice and fairness and people who are disenfranchised will believe you. Everybody loves their choir to preach to them. Don’t get me wrong. I’m not discounting the entire network. I think Chris Wallace is pretty good and so is Greta Van Sustren. However, the very fact that Brit Hume can be a so called “Fair and Balanced” news anchor the entire week and then be a bonafide conservative commentator on Sunday simply proves that Fox’s ethics are out of whack.

Probably the same way they act now. There has to be an upper theoretical limit to hysteria.

Who knows this? The Spanish? Was there any history before the seventh century?
Do we forget about the Iberians,CeltsCarthaginians,Romans and Visigoths?
This is the most preposterous argument ever made. Say the British decided it was time to reclaim their empire. How do you think people would react?

I would argue that all liberal countries are our natural allies in this struggle. But it will need to become clear to them that thier hard won liberties are truly at risk, and that it is not a struggle for simple economic or political advantage.

Glenn is a centrist but O’Reilly is most definitely not.
Conservatives, like Ann Coulter for one, would disagree. She can’t stand him; says he looks at both sides of an issue and instinctively picks a position in the middle. I agree with the ratings part, though.

Fox’s noise machine
You have to remember, journos are overwhelmingly liberal. That’s just a fact. Fox tilts right by comparison to other networks, but objectively is probably the closest thing to centrist in TV news, which is why they stomp their competitors into the dirt so thoroughly despite being utterly loathed by the rest of the press.

And certainly with all due respect TallDave, Glenn is a centrist but O’Reilly is most definitely not.

Sure, Bill purports to be a “populist”, but somebody who seemingly takes so much joy in bashing liberals, calling names and making up facts is not trying to unite anybody. He’s the lynchpin of Fox’s noise machine and he knows what drives ratings. I appreciate his stances on the death penalty and border control, but his show and his views and his rhetoric simply strikes me as disingenious and opportunistic.

However, I do agree that our current divisions do help our leaders move more towards the sensible center. I would those same divisions also help blogs move there too. ;-)

I do believe the reason America appears especially divided now is twofold - one, there is simply a lot more discourse, with 24 hr news channels and blogs; second, US politics now teems with innumerable advocacy groups whose mission is to confront, confront, confront.

If you despair of the center, take heart in the popularity of relative centrists like Glenn Reynolds and Bill O’Reilly. We should also be glad our Presidents are elected the way they are, because it forces ambitious politicos like Hillary Clinton and John McCain to move toward the center.

Yet with the same sane brain he insists it was wrong for the U.S. to bring the hammer down on Saddam to force him out.

One of the strongest strains of Western Civilization, especially compared to its sisters around the globe, is individualism. And for historically explainable reasons, that quality is today most highly distilled in America. In its most admirable form, that means sticking to what you know is right, regardless of what the majority around you says and does. Insults like “unilateralist” and “partisan” can disguise a slap at that admirable quality.

Christopher Hitchens, probably based on his lifelong “contrarian” career, seems to appreciate it and has written about it here and there. There’s a more recent example, which I can’t now find, but here’s one from the run-up to the Iraq war:

The most dada version of the dilemma was stated by Sen. Tom Daschle, who for weeks appeared to say that if only more people would endorse the president’s policy, why then, he might be induced to support it himself! But in the meanwhile, he could only frown upon anything “unilateral.”

This self-canceling complaint echoes the non-distinction on Capitol Hill between the terms “partisan” and “bipartisan.” A proposal is partisan if made by one party, but becomes “bipartisan” (while remaining exactly the same as a proposal) if it is endorsed by enough members of the other party. There’s no trick to it really. It’s all a matter of wooing rather than principle.

In this era, ‘Centrism’ is likely to be a morphing condition. It will require constant adjustment, attention, reaction and proaction. It’s tricky, and for the whole of the West, it’s never happened before. Not fully. Are you up to the task?