To Define Normalcy
is certainly a smart guy, and he is said to be one of the better conservative writers out there. Yet, this op-ed, "Return to Normalcy," shows not only his limitations, but perhaps the limitations of almost all writers/pundits/intellectuals thinking about politics today. It is clever of him to juxtapose liberal "fantasy" and conservative "freakout" and then imply that a kind of return to "normalcy" (and maybe even moderation or even bipartisanship) is going on. On the other hand, he cleverly says, he is not sure that any of this is good for the country!
He says that courage is needed and there are hard challenges ahead. Somehow comity is not enough, and therefore courage is needed. OK, now tell us more. But there is no more. I would not mind an attempt on his part to say something about what is good for the country and how politics should look when there are real disagreements about that. I am not saying that this can be done comprehensively in 800 words, but couldn't we get a glimpse into it? Can no one take a shot at this?
10:45 AM / December 27, 2010