|
I read the article, and some points:
- It's a bit disingenous to say that Canada's "smug moral superiority" is any better/worse than the U.S. I thought that was a unnecessary non sequiter, which the truth of is debatable.
- The author takes some liberties with the timeline of neo-conservatism; I realized he clarified on his definition of the neo-cons towards the end of the article, but he really should have stated that from the outset. It colors his argument, and takes away from it, frankly; the essay comes off as more of a criticism of the U.S. as a whole, rather than of neo-cons. (specifically when he brings up the Bay of Pigs and Saigon)
- The Wall Street Journal mini-rant was also awkward, since one could say the same thing (on the other end of the spectrum) about the New York Times, The Boston Globe, and other major metro newspapers.
As more of a fiscal conservative/small government fan, I have some issues with the way things have gone under the President. The tone of the article, though, seems to seperate it from some more academic writings I've seen.
|