Will Wilkinson would be a great choice, also.

Kristol: “Conservatives have been right more often than not — and more often than liberals — about most of the important issues of the day: about Communism and jihadism, crime and welfare, education and the family. Conservative policies have on the whole worked — insofar as any set of policies can be said to “work” in the real world.”

Is he serious? Granted, I spent what was left of the 70s in a crib, but were conservatives standing alone against communism before Reagan came along with his jelly beans and grin? Who funded the jihadists against the USSR, the Bathists against Iran, and then the Iranians against the Bathists (while peddling drugs for Central American cartels)? Who waffled and returned semi-automatic weapons to the streets (and hunting lodges), while institutionalizing curbs on civil liberties and empowering the police to fight “wars” against those they’re meant to serve & protect? Which party among the state legislatures has consistently cut back on public education to fulfill promises of tax-cuts (while not daring to slash state jobs for fear of the unions), and at the federal level impeded investment in sciences and technologies that offend the sensibilities of suburban housewives with big hair? And the family – how dare he suggest government can take any credit for what average people do day-in and day-out, raising kids and providing for one another, so often in spite of their government going above & beyond its measures to make it harder on them. He’s proud; fair enough. Fair enough too that I hope he chokes on his hubris.

The one smart thing he included was a question asked by Harvey Mansfield in 1978: “Who today is called a liberal for strength and confidence in defense of liberty?” That’s worth asking still.

Let’s hope classical liberalism gets it’s day; tempered even by hope and sensibility, goal-limited programming rather than bureaucracy building. I don’t know, something called governance.

I think you make a fair point, but I do think it’s very reasonable to believe that Bush’s policies were more than just an extension of executive power-grabs that had been occurring for decades. He almost never even tried to follow the law, he knowingly violated many laws, covered up the fact that he did and then interfered with investigations into his illegal acts. These were not really areas where legality wasmuch in dispute either.

I think the difference in Bush’s power grabs were so significant from others of the past as to make them a different breed entirely. He also violated some of the most fundamental principles of our nation including those espoused in the bill of rights. I think that makes them worse, than efforts to spend more money or prosecute more and new crimes, or initiate new programs as we’ve seen before.

I imagine there are many “average” people who never cared all that much about the constitution or bill of rights or geneva conventions before Bush came along and basically urinated all over them.

For me it was any sentence containing the words “former President George W. Bush”.

freeassociation.blogspot.com

You know what would be great? If the Times could find a genuine advocate of limited government (or at least a bona-fide civil libertarian) to take Kristol’s place.

Of course, John Tierney had a run on the Op/Ed page, but it was short for some reason.

But as for “bona-fide civil libertarians,” Nat Hentoff was laid off recently from the Village Voice; he’d certainly be a better choice than, well, anybody they currently have.

Truth is you can probably start at George Washington and work your way forward.

A safe bet most of the time on any given policy proposal is this:

The correct policy is some policy other than the one William Kristol suggests.

It’s sort of an, “I don’t know what’s right, but I damn sure know what’s wrong” approach to public policy, but it’s no worse than any other approach.

I use a similar approach only I substitute “Ralph Nader.”

@ Tom G (#3): I don’t know about anyone else, but I’d prefer someone with more intellectual heft and consistency that Glen Greenwald.

He has described his political views as having been greatly affected by the broadening of executive power that became apparent to him after the events of September 11, 2001. That strikes me as disingenuous, since he is obviously intelligent. I don’t think there is a serious argument against the idea that the power of the federal executive has been expanding (improperly) for the better part of a century all the way back to Teddy Roosevelt, at least. The former President Bush did make some striking claims on large, visible issues, but the executive power gram doesn’t date from 9/11/2001. Bush’s claims are like a rash that makes the presence of an infection finally visible on the skin, making Greenwald’s statement appear self-serving, made for the sake of appealing to the majority of people who were not supporters of the former president (irrespective on their position on the issue of executive power) and positioning himself with Democrats.

Someone like Radley, Gene Healy or Will Wilkinson who is clearly not sitting in either of the major party camps would be a more compelling spokesperson for libertarian ideas, a with more scholarly approach (at least with Messrs. Healy and Wilkinson, Radley’s work has also been largely popular stuff, I think, like Greenwald).