War and Foreign Policy

The drive of the New Deal toward war once again reshuffled the ideological spectrum and the meaning of Left and Right in American politics.

Of course Podhoretz's argument is wrong: it does not follow from the instability of a government that a successor regime can be easily established.

Greenwald's argument is a simple one: Because of the overwhelming military might of the United States, no other country can attack us without facing utter destruction. 

Norman Podhoretz, an eminent authority on the novels of Norman Mailer, has for decades postured as an expert in foreign policy as well.

Take the quiz. An

No person or group of people is without value — not even those whom our own government chooses to label the enemy.

How comfy we are all in the United States, as we engage in living-room debates about the US occupation of Iraq.

Suppose that Iran got a nuclear bomb. Would it be of any use to it? Let’s say the US attacks Iran and kills half of its population.

But the critical thing is that these people will be governing themselves, and the critical thing that prevents progress today — the presence of the foreign occupier — will be gone. The solution is imperfect, to be sure, but it is better than the opposite of turning the entire world into a prison camp run by the U.S. government.

A solid gold standard in which every dime spent had to come from an existing stock of money would shatter the whole system. Is it any wonder that this is the last subject politicians want to talk about?