Soundings, January/February 2004

"Objectivity [does not] require neutrality. Medical science is no less scientifically objective because it is completely biased in favor of people and against bacteria. Medical researchers are studying cancer cells with scientific objectivity in order to discover what the hard facts are about those cells, regardless of anyone's preconceived beliefs. But they are doing so precisely in order to destroy cancer cells and, if possible, prevent their existence in the first place.

"Objectivity refers to an honest seeking of the truth, whatever that truth may turn out to be and regardless of what its implications might be. Neutrality refers to a preconceived 'balance,' which subordinates the truth to this preconception.

Journalists who reported the horrors of the Nazi concentration camps were not violating canons of objectivity by failing to use such neutral language as calling these places 'residential facilities' or those who ran them 'hosts.' Nor did the use of the term 'dictator' to describe Hitler mean that World War II journalists did not come up to the supposedly high standards of today's media.

"One of the pious phrases of the mealy mouth media is that 'the truth lies somewhere in between.' It may or it may not. Only after you have found the truth do you know where it is." Thomas Sowell, "Mealy Mouth Media," January 6, 2004.

Birds of a feather. "A specter has been haunting Marxism—the specter of Christianity. Routed politically by capitalist globalism, and hard-pressed to identify any really existing hope, some prominent Marxists have turned to Christianity for inspiration and revision. Terry Eagleton has reclaimed his Catholic past, and now exhorts his comrades to read theology. Michael Hardt and Antonio Negri [authors of the postmodernist, Marxoid Empire] have invoked St. Francis as a model of 'the future life of communist militancy.' And Alain Badiou, arguably France's foremost Marxist, has upheld St. Paul as the pre-secular augur of revolutionary universalism." Eugene McCarraher, "A Merry Marxy Christmas," In These Times, December 23, 2003.

"It is sheer laziness now that counts France and Germany as old allies, sheer naiveté that counts Russia as a new one.

"It should not surprise us. Countries have different interests. For a half-century, anticommunism papered over those differences, but communism is gone. Europe lives by Lord Palmerston's axiom: nations have no permanent allies, only permanent interests. Alliance with America is no longer a permanent interest. The postwar alliance that once structured and indeed defined our world is dead. It died in 2003.

"To be sure, there are some countries that see their ultimate security as dependent upon the international order maintained by the U.S. These are not insignificant countries, and over time they may become the kernel of an entirely new alliance system. They include Anglo-Saxons (Britain, Australia) and a few Europeans (Italy, Spain, Poland, other newly liberated East European countries). They understand that the sinews of stability—free commerce, open sea lanes, regional balances of power, nonproliferation, deterrence—are provided overwhelmingly by the American colossus. They understand that without it, the world collapses into chaos and worse. They believe in the American umbrella and are committed to helping the umbrella holder.

"As for the rest, they are content to leave America out there twisting in the wind. They do not wish us destroyed—they are not crazy—but they are not unhappy to see us distracted, diminished and occasionally defeated." Charles Krauthammer, "A Farewell to Allies," Time, January 5, 2004.

"Reducing the size of government can no longer be Republicans' animating principle…. Republicans have learned through hard experience that most Americans do not actually want their government sharply cut. Voters are skeptical of government, but they elect candidates who promise solutions for their problems, not ones who tear down departments. They do not respond to politicians whose primary message is 'No, no, no.'" David Brooks, conservative op-ed columnist, New York Times, January 3, 2004.

"'It's safe to say that there is tremendous dissatisfaction [among Republicans] and a kind of dawning on people that Bush is not interested in smaller government,' said Edward H. Crane, president of the Cato Institute…. 'There is going to be a real battle for the soul of the Republican party in 2008,' he predicted, 'because the free-market types, the limited government types, realize they have been sold a bill of goods with Bush. And they are not going out without a fight.'" New York Times, January 4, 2004.