- The Washington Times - Monday, December 20, 2004

In-law ‘clones’

“When Maria [Shriver] met Arnold [Schwarzenegger], she was locked in the grid of her family. ‘That is why I call the family clones,’ Arnold said. ‘Everyone in the family thinks the same. … When you are in the family, you think this is normal, and then you meet someone from the outside and the lights go on.’ …

“This, Arnold explained, was the reason ‘a lot of them split and came out here [to California]. Bobby came out here and found himself. Maria got away.’ …

“Schwarzenegger has become, for many, a fusion candidate from a fusion state, but within the inner sanctum of their family, there has been no discernible shift by Maria to the Republican view of things. ‘In the beginning I know there was some concern about me,’ she said. ‘ “Is she going to pull him to the left? Is she trying to make him a Democrat?” I was like, “Should I stay in the background?” Arnold was like, “She is my partner. She is involved with everything.” He was the one who put me out there.’ ”

Marie Brenner, writing on “Mr. and Mrs. California,” in the January issue of Vanity Fair

Victory for … decency

“Hamilton College in upstate New York [Dec. 8] announced that the former Weather Underground mascot Susan Rosenberg, ‘who had been invited to Hamilton College as an artist-in-residence with the Kirkland Project, has decided to withdraw.’ Actually, she was supposed to come as ‘an artist/activist-in-residence,’ but we’ll overlook that detail.

“Concerned faculty and alumni had brought enormous pressure to bear upon Hamilton over the appointment of a person whose claim to fame rested on episodes of violence and anti-American hatred — episodes that left several law enforcement officers dead. … Rosenberg’s ‘withdrawal’ is a victory for the integrity of liberal arts education, not to mention common decency.”

Roger Kimball, writing on “The terrorist-turned-teacher withdraws,” Dec. 9 on the New Criterion’s Web site, www.newcriterion.com

Churchill’s history

“The idea of pre-determination is often linked to a progressive understanding of history: the notion that human existence is necessarily getting better by every measure, especially by a political measure. Ultimately, such an understanding posits a time when the story of man will end, when human existence will resolve itself into final form. This final stage of history will see the cessation of conflict … a time when statesmanship is no longer necessary. Churchill rejected this understanding of history. He found in history relevant lessons for present action precisely because the nature and experience of man remain consistent.

“Churchill did not believe that history was a linear process which guaranteed the final establishment of any political principle. Churchill was a believer in democracy. He was a firm adherent of the Anglo-American political tradition. He thought it provided the healthiest way of life for individual nations, and that the extension of this tradition to the world … was the best way to maintain peace in a troubled world. But Churchill did not think that democracy would triumph because history demanded it. He thought it could triumph because it was the best political approach available to man, but only if democratic peoples conducted themselves in a worthy manner. …

“The study of Churchill’s statesmanship deserves a central place in the scholarship of the politics of freedom.”

Justin Lyons, writing on “Remembering Winston Churchill,” Nov. 30 for the Ashbrook Center at www.ashbrook.org

Copyright © 2018 The Washington Times, LLC. Click here for reprint permission.

The Washington Times Comment Policy

The Washington Times welcomes your comments on Spot.im, our third-party provider. Please read our Comment Policy before commenting.


Click to Read More and View Comments

Click to Hide