- The Washington Times - Tuesday, November 5, 2002

Car culture
"Last spring I needed a new car, and I knew Chevrolet had brought back the name 'Impala,' so I decided to take a look. It got good reviews, but when I looked at it and got in and drove it, it was just, well, okay. Not anything like the old ones.
"That's what started me thinking about my favorite Chevy, the glorious '57. Doesn't everyone love those? When one goes by, don't you all say, 'Hey, look, a '57 Chevy!' No one's ever going to say, 'Hey, look, a '93 Buick!'
"And that's when I got the idea. Why don't we build them again? Seriously. They've got to have the plans sitting on a shelf somewhere, right? Then why not?
"[How] many of you out there would jump at the chance to buy a brand new '57 Chevy? I would. Wouldn't we all? Wouldn't everyone in the world? I mean, there wouldn't be one unemployed American, there'd be endless rows of factories dotted all over the country, Michael Moore would be dancing with George Will, because we'd all be building and buying '57 Chevys. There'd probably be a big drop in the murder rate, too, because we'd all be too busy cruising around in our cool '57 Chevys. Can you imagine what every town and city would be like on a Saturday night? [T]he whole country would look like 'Happy Days.'"
Larry Miller, writing on "See the USA in Your Chevrolet," yesterday in the Weekly Standard Online at www.weekly-standard.com

Marxist abyss
"No other idea so enchanted the 20th century as Marxism. To this day, one often comes across assertions that Marxism retains value as an 'analytic tool' the use of which does not necessarily make one a Marxist. The first person to make this distinction was, of course, Karl Marx himself, who famously forswore 'Marxism,' an appellation coined by his detractors. Marx's collaborator, Friedrich Engels, however, embraced the term, building a powerful cult around it, in which he was the high priest and Marx the oracle.
"[Engels] and Marx, a pair of 20-something children of privilege, believed they had discovered a pattern to history that would produce socialism regardless of human will or ingenuity. In short, they substituted prophecy for experimentation and thereby claimed to have elevated socialism from the plane of utopia to that of science.
"But after a century of Lenin, Stalin, Mao and Pol Pot, surely we have learned that far from constituting a leap 'from the kingdom of necessity to the kingdom of freedom,' as Marx put it, revolution has more often been a leap into a bottomless abyss of human suffering."
Joshua Muravchik, writing on "Marxism," in the November/December issue of Foreign Policy

Lame on arrival
"I spoke at an anti-war rally outside the U.N. on Sept. 12, the same day that President Bush, inside, addressed the General Assembly. The turnout was ragged, 300 or so. But the numbers weren't the most dismaying aspect of that gathering. The signs were.
"Most of the printed placards held by the protesters said 'NO SANCTIONS, NO BOMBING.' Those picket signs are emblematic of a refusal to face a grotesque world. They express a near-total unwillingness to rebuke Saddam Hussein, and a rejection of any conceivable rationale for using force.
"This will not play in Peoria. It does not deserve to play in Washington . Liberal-left anti-warriors need to be out-front patriots if they expect to draw the attention and the support of Americans at large.
"So how did they end up at the front of the anti-war parade? In part, it's because they're always ready, and because they always have the same answer to every question: 'US Out of Everywhere.' Right now, the hard left is in charge by default, and the anti-war movement is lame on arrival as a result."
Todd Gitlin, writing on "Who Will Lead," Oct. 14 on the Mother Jones Web site at www.mojones-.com


LOAD COMMENTS ()

 

Click to Read More

Click to Hide