I wonder if there have been any phone calls from Tehran to Europe over the past week.

Isn't this desired result of the exercise?

Come now... there was certainly "backbone" in 1914, and also in the 40's (though not France).

I only say that to re-emphasize the "unending tapestry" that is history.

Truly, we see Western Civilization (European branch) gasping for breath and even dying from it's self-inflicted wounds at the Somme and Verdun, the Ardennes and Stalingrad.

Truly an infuriating and disgraceful shame.

But don't you think it is Europe's combative past that has made it so reluctant to go to war today?

No. It's their secularism.

B -

That is precisely what I think. They tragedy is that that "combative stance" was all too often taken in the name of stupid ideologies of race or statism or both, and has thus utterly discredited the very idea of standing for something at all.

I am reminded of how the Soviets rejoiced over the existence of Joe McCarthy. No KGB could ever discredit anti-Sovietism a tenth as much as that idiot McCarthy did, by taking a valid reality and acting like a bloviating nut case and fool over it.

Anti-anti-Sovietism haunts us to this day in confronting enemies of freedom, and Europe's prior combativness for all the wrong reasons will likely doom it tomorrow.... a very near tomorrow.

Thus the tragedy and disgrace.

Andrew, There's new thinking on McCarthy.

To the contrary, McCarthy so demonized Communism that no significant American would espose so much as socialism.

E -

Let's be wary of tangenting off the subject.

Briefly, I don't know if you are thinking that much of what McCarthy said was in fact true.... I would agree.

I think the point remains valid that, from a PR standpoint if you will, McCarthy conducted himself abominably and DID in fact discredit anti-Sovietism and WAS in fact appreciated by Soviets for doing just that (just as the British decided late in WWII not to go through with a plan to assasinate Hitler because der Fuhrer's military incompetence was starting to work in their favor.)

Again, wary of digression, but I think those points stand.

oj: In your comment above are you equating secularism with selfishness? Or, in your eyes, is there a difference?

There is no difference. They've nothing to fight for because all they believe in is the self and risking it is intolerable.

Andrew:

You're reciting liberal nonsense. The elites hated him. America loved him. And it scared the bejeebies out of the Left which could never again advocate for what it truly wanted. Witch hunts work.

Note that the Kennedys, Nixon and Reagan all built their national reputations on McCarthyism.

The "Peacekeepers of Penzance" article above makes your point quite well oj.

Well (sniffff) , Lileks agrees with me, so there!

I only bring that up because Instapundit is, right now, linking to what I think is one of Lileks best writings, one that involves McCarthy, but is really about, yet again, the propensity of cultural elites to orgasm over their own alleged bravery and all around goodness in elevating childishness to an aspiration.

Check it out, it's golden.

http://www.lileks.com/bleats/archive/06/0806/082106.html

Yes, the elites always think they're brave because Americans hate them.

Just because Lileks writes great human interest stuff about his daughter and his dog, doesn't make him an expert on politics.

Both he and Reynolds and you can throw in Green take great pains to assure readers they don't support Republicans or the conservative movement. They probably moved away from liberals in the wake of 9/11 but I'd bet they'd return to the fold if there was no further threat of terrorism.

Reynolds is suddenly linking to Lileks who isn't even a member of the Pajamarama. Hmm?

X - I lived through the McCarthy era, so I assure you I know of which I speak. My husband went to a prestigious Catholic University in New York City in the mid-50's and was assigned the pro-McCarthy side in a debate. When the time came, he was told that the matter was settled and he needn't present his findings. A one-sided debate was satisfactory in the eyes of the defenders of the faith. Anecdotal, but true. If this happened in today's world, news of the travesty would have flown around the blogosphere and the people involved would have been exposed.

Yes, if you read the media you will learn that McCarthy was a very bad actor, the evil twin of Father Coughlin and he died the death of a falling down drunk. I'd take that scenario with a very large grain of salt. Ann Coulter was correct in her book, "Treason," but she's been sufficiently demonized by the media, so her findings are suspect.

Contrary to setting back anti-Communism forty years, if McCarthy hadn't come on the scene just when he did or if they silenced him more quickly, Communism probably would have succeeded in the U.S. Everything learned since those bad old day has proved him right.

I, the Jury sold 6 million copies.

Mrs. Erp, did you get McCarthy and his Enemies yet? If so, how did you like it?

Yes, Mr. M., and thank you again for the suggestion. It's an old book I most probably read a long ago. I scanned the pages, but nothing new popped out at me. Do you recommend a chapter or section that I may benefit from re-reading? I was disappointed they didn't do a follow up, especially on the Verona Papers.

I'm supposing that the L. Brent Bozell who co-authored the book is the father of the Bozell currently of Media Research Center who doesn't look old enough to have written a book published in 1954.

Yes, the appendix in back covering the conman sharking some of the best and brightest is priceless.....

Rbt. Thanks. Buckley states in the Introduction to the 1995 ed. that they decided to let the book stand as it was in 1953, so I only skimmed through it.

I'll save reading Appendix G for a time I can devote my full attention to it with no interruptions. By that I mean, of course, sitting in a comfortably appointed chamber waiting to be seen by one of my vast army of healthcare providers. Of such ephemeral matters are chronicled the golden years of our lives.