In covering Palestinian terror attacks against Israel, leading media outlets often employ the hateful, misleading phrase “cycle of violence.” After a Jerusalem gunman entered the library at a religious seminary and murdered eight students, the Wall Street Journal, for instance, noted the incident as part of “the region’s cycle of violence and retaliation.”

This designation, however, implies a moral equivalence between those who attempt to end terrorism against unarmed innocents, and those who seek to keep it going.

The “cycle of violence” also implies that either party could break the vicious pattern, but they’re both too stubborn and vengeful to do so. Actually, the Israelis have tried on countless occasions to end the cycle by giving Palestinians what they said they wanted –  support for statehood in the Oslo accords, and even removal of all Jewish soldiers and settlements from Gaza, along with a policy to stay out of this Palestinian territory as long as its residents left Israel alone. The result was actually a sharp increase in terrorist rocket attacks, with nearly 1,000 in 2008 alone. Does anyone honestly believe that if Israel stopped all strikes against Hamas, that the Gaza terrorists would give up their attacks?

The mirror-image question shows the asymmetrical nature of this struggle: if Gaza, through some miracle, suddenly stopped the daily barrage against Israel, would anyone expect Israel to continue its strikes against Gaza? The Israelis repeatedly emphasize their desire to leave Gaza entirely alone, and even to support its peaceful progress, if the terrorists only halted their shelling of schools, homes, hospitals and factories

In other words, in the midst of the current agony two conclusions should seem obvious about the so-called “cycle of violence” ---

1-     the Palestinians could end it instantly by ending their daily attacks

2-     the Israelis remain powerless to stop it, because the Palestinians promise and demonstrate that they’ll continue their ceaseless assault regardless of what Israelis do

In other words, only one party to this conflict can put an end to the “cycle” of killing. Kindness and concessions have never stopped terrorists from behaving like terrorists. The only strategy that seems to work involves imposing consequences, and changing the calculus through which bloody outrages too often produce favorable publicity and political gains. Instead, the forces of civilization need to making the results of terror attacks vastly more terrible for the perpetrators than for their victims.

Neither high-octane campaigns nor charisma-laden politicians (see JFK, Reagan and Clinton) have been able to break the deadlock of presidential politics over the past 50 years. So will this November be any different? 

As the 2008 electoral calendar moves inexorably from primary season to the climactic partisan battle of the fall, both parties prefer to ignore the painful reality of a narrowly divided electorate and to consider their candidates in the light of false nostalgia. 

Democrats view Barack Obama as a youthful savior in the mode of John F. Kennedy or the Bill Clinton of 16 years ago — a handsome political magician who will electrify the country and sweep to overwhelming victory. 

Republicans look at John McCain and sigh, worried that he can't measure up to the idolized Reagan — who came riding out of the West with a rock-solid record, united all conservatives, and instantly established a durable right-wing majority. 

Such "recollections" amount to a sad example of political veterans rhapsodizing over their youthful adventures while embellishing, or misremembering, the truth about the past. 

The 43-year-old Kennedy fell far short of soaring victory in 1960 — beating the charismatically challenged Richard Nixon by the narrowest of margins (49.7% of the popular vote to 49.5%). Clinton also failed to win a majority of his fellow citizens, not once but twice: Thanks to Ross Perot's third-party ego trips, he won the White House with only 43% of the vote in 1992 and 49.2% in 1996.  

As for Reagan, he similarly benefited from a third-party candidacy (by the now-forgotten John Anderson) and won his famous landslide victory over the deeply unpopular Jimmy Carter with only 51% of the vote (the same percentage earned by the controversial George W. Bush in 2004). Moreover, Reagan bore far more resemblance to McCain than today's purist conservatives want to acknowledge: as one of the oldest newly elected presidents (only two years younger than McCain's would-be inauguration age of 72) and a pragmatist whose gubernatorial record in California (signing a bill to legalize abortion, raising taxes to cover deficits) offended right-wing ideologues. 

An enduring deadlock  

The fact that even political heroes such as Reagan, Kennedy and Clinton failed to win resounding majorities shouldn't undermine their reputations as supremely gifted campaigners. Yet even these vote-getting superstars couldn't shatter the deadlock that has afflicted presidential politics for nearly a half-century. 

Going all the way back to Kennedy's race in 1960, eight of the 12 presidential contests have yielded a winner who won less than 51% of the popular vote. The only exceptions, in which a candidate assembled a substantial majority, involved three popular incumbents (Lyndon Johnson in '64, Nixon in '72 and Reagan in '84) running for re-election against feeble opponents, and one sitting vice president (George H.W. Bush) who ran as the candidate for "Reagan's third term" and managed to gather 54%.  

All other presidential victories produced either minority presidents (Kennedy in '60, Nixon in '68, Clinton in both his races, Bush in 2000) or barely cleared the bar of 50% (Carter in '76, Reagan in '80, Bush in 2004).  

These results should stand as definitive rebuttal to cherished myths that continue to bedevil both conservatives and liberals. For decades, right-leaning activists have cherished the notion of a "silent majority," a long-suffering mass of quiet but committed traditionalists who wait only for a "true conservative" Prince Charming to awaken the sleeping giant with a kiss. Some true believers maintain stubborn faith in this much-loved legend of a right-wing consensus ready for arousal by a leader whose voice speaks forcefully enough — a phantom majority that never instantly materialized for Reagan himself let alone Reagan-wannabes such as Pat Buchanan or Mitt Romney. 

On the left, ideologues and activists nurture a mirror-image faith in the "idealism" and "radicalism" of the American people, if only the right messianic figure managed to mobilize our long-buried lust for change. This notion of a blocked and sublimated passion for "systemic change" helps explain the huge emotional investment in the three Kennedy brothers to whom their followers imputed near superhuman powers: Despite the fact that Jack was actually a moderate-to-conservative president, Bobby was facing an uphill battle for the Democratic nomination when he was assassinated in '68; Teddy, in his one bid for the White House in 1980, mobilized almost no one and made scant progress even against the hapless Carter. The "movement for change" of Democratic dreams failed to materialize not because of personal deficiencies in any Kennedy or Clinton (or McGovern, Mondale, Dukakis or Gore), but because liberal ideology has never attracted anything near a majority of the populace. 

Another nail-biter?  

These failures and frustrations on both sides suggest that we most likely will witness another breathlessly close race in 2008 — especially with no sitting president or vice president in the race and scant prospect of a major third-party spoiler. Regardless of Democratic enchantment with Obama, history indicates that even the most electrifying and barrier-busting campaigners will still hover around 50% of the popular vote of a durably divided electorate. 

The record also suggests that whatever the Republican criticisms of McCain, he won't fall far below 50% of the public that reliably leans toward his party. In other words, as present polls predict, we'll get another seesaw battle, in which either candidate can tip the result with minor mistakes or unexpected cunning, as they struggle through one more ferocious fight within the narrow confines of this half-century-old presidential deadlock.

Nearly forty percent of all elementary and high school students in the US already receive government funded lunches, but school administrators say that’s not enough! They want to remove the stigma in getting free meals, swelling the ranks of federally fed students above today’s 31 million, and increasing annual costs beyond the $8.3 billion we spend today. Bureaucrats across the country told the New York Times they want to destroy the natural – and appropriate – embarrassment many kids feel about getting taxpayer funded meals while their friends buy their own food. Officials in New York say “more eligible students would eat if all school cafeterias offered free meals to everyone, regardless of economic status.” If government feeds all kids for free, then why should any mom take the time and trouble to pack lunch for her offspring? The inexorable growth of “Nanny State” big government increasingly usurps the role of parents and inevitably weakens the importance of families.

For many people, it may seem inappropriate to use the terms “exciting” and “classical music” in the same sentence, but they might reconsider if they listened to an altogether stunning new version of Beethoven’s friendliest, most joyous symphony.

If you’re already familiar with the “Pastorale” (officially, the Symphony Number 6 in F Major) then you’ll discover new thrills and revelations in this glorious CD, and if you don’t know this music yet there’s never been a better way to savor it. This brand new release (on the excellent Swedish BIS label) also provides further evidence that in Minneapolis, of all places, a great and world class orchestra has emerged that’s worthy in every way to challenge the legendary bands in Berlin, Vienna, London, New York and Chicago.

For those who’ve seen the 1940 Walt Disney classic “Fantasia,” the Pastorale (in edited form) provides the musical basis for the segment featuring Greek gods and goddesses, centaurs and nymphs and other mythical creatures disporting themselves (sometimes comically) in an Olympian landscape.

Actually, the images Beethoven himself intended to transmit (this is his only symphony in which he wrote explicitly about the feelings and scenes he intended to convey) are far more compelling than Disney’s diversions. The titles for each of the five movements describe an experience that’s simultaneously physical and spiritual. The journey begins with “Pleasant, cheerful feelings awakened by arrival in the country,” as the music suggests the gentle rocking of a coach. The experience continues with “A scene by a brook” (complete with birdcalls and flowing water); a frantic, joyous, celebratory dance by country people, who are interrupted by a sudden (and suddenly ferocious) thunder storm. The final movement, one of the most heart-felt and glorious expressions of religious gratitude ever written by human hands, bears the title: “Shepherd’s Song: Sense of well-being, combined with thanks to the Lord after the storm.”

Beethoven’s music (premiered in 1808 when the composer was 38 and already losing his hearing) is so magnificently tuneful that it sounds beautiful and moving even in amateurish and sloppy performances, but the new edition with the Minnesota Orchestra and their brilliant conductor Osmo Vanska makes the familiar symphony sizzle and explode with fresh energy and inspiration. Recorded in Orchestra Hall in Minneapolis in June of last year, the performance conveys a sense of immediacy and youthful discovery that animates every episode, every phrase. The “arrival in the country” sequence isn’t just a soothing, warm bath of tranquil emotion this time: Vanska and his Minnesotans sound like they’re ready to throw open the door to that horse-drawn carriage, so they can run and leap through the green meadows and fields. The storm, when it arrives, is no mere meteorological episode; in this performance it’s genuinely terrifying, almost apocalyptic. Here, it’s more clear than ever before that Beethoven meant the thunder-claps and the howling winds to represent more than discomfort or inconvenience, and to stand in for all the darkness and menace and malevolence that intrudes so regularly into our lives.

This makes the song of thanksgiving all the more moving, of course, and in this movement the new Minnesota version soars well above all the literally hundreds of previously recorded performances. This hymn goes beyond gratitude, with its aura of rapture, even ecstasy, transporting listeners to a plane of Godly euphoria that Beethoven only reached again toward the end of his life (with the Ninth Symphony, the Missa Solemnis and above all the Late Quartets). Hearing this new CD should convince even the most stubborn skeptic that a classical orchestra, with all members playing their hearts out, can come closer than any other form of communication to approximating the ancient idea of “music of the spheres” – the divine sounds produced by heavenly bodies in their transit through the ether.

Obviously, I’ve always loved this music and I’ve listened closely to dozens of different versions. In fact, on vinyl, tape and CD, I own 14 other performances of the Pastorale. Until now, my favorite was a priceless gem from the early days of stereo, with Bruno Walter conducting the “Columbia Symphony Orchestra” (actually, a pick-up band made up largely of members of the LA Philharmonic) and recorded in the richly resonant acoustic of the Hollywood American Legion Hall in January, 1958. This fifty-year-old product still sounds great (especially in its re-release on Super Audio CD), with its old-school romantic caress of the long, flowing melodic lines and its unique attitude of awe-struck spirituality. Walter, who was 82 when he made this famous recording some four years before he died, certainly counts as one of the greatest conductors in history, and an incomparable representative of the German Romantic tradition that Beethoven himself helped to launch.

Osmo Vanska, on the other hand, is only 55 (still relatively young for a titan of conducting) and he’s been leading the Minnesota Orchestra for just five years. In that time, the fiercely focused Finn has taken a respected regional ensemble and sharpened and deepened and polished its playing to produce a series of Beethoven recordings that have drawn universal acclaim. Their prior performance of the Ninth Symphony, for instance, features the same rapturous mood as this Sixth, with a chorus that sounds absolutely otherworldly and angelic. For those who use CD players with Super Audio capability, the Minnesota series features Direct Stream Digital/SACD sound that’s detailed, deep and dynamically thrilling, but in its Hybrid release format (fully compatible with any and all CD players) it still sparkles.

The bonus on the new Pastorale release is a fleet, frisky reading of the genial First Symphony. If not as thrilling and revelatory as the featured work, this still formidable First once again highlights the crisp, responsive, unfailingly energetic playing of the Minnesotans and their new leader.

And where did this genius come from, with his wire-rimmed glasses, rubbery features, and wild curly hair as weird as his name? He spent most of the last twenty years specializing in Scandinavian music in his native Finland, and I’ve been listening to some electrifying Vanska recordings of Sibelius (with his impressive Lahti Symphony Orchestra) with considerable satisfaction. Since he arrived in the Midwest to revive his reportedly dispirited and floundering Minnesota band, some of the glowing Minneapolis press accounts have labeled Maestro Vanska “the Wizard of Osmo” and there is something unquestionably magical about music-making of this order.

The new CD isn’t particularly cheap (typically, about 17 bucks on the internet or at a store) but most happy customers will listen with pleasure and joy so many times that they’ll make the purchase a bargain.

Official information: BEETHOVEN SYMPHONIES NUMBERS 1 & 6 (“Pastorale”), with the Minnesota Orchestra conducted by Osmo Vanska. BIS SACD-1716.

A 2004 study shows that a conservative political outlook correlates with values most Americans consider beneficial for out kids.  UCLA’s Higher Education Research Institute asked 15,000 college seniors across the country about their goals. The self-identified conservative kids gave top priority to “raising a family” and “doing very well financially.” Liberal students, on the other hand, stressed goals like “developing a meaningful philosophy of life,” “finding creative outlets,” and avoiding “structured work environments.”  When raising youngsters, most parents instinctively understand the importance of stressing values that this study clearly identifies as conservative: deferred gratification, following rules, honoring the importance of family. Few families want kids to reject authority, stress indulgence over success, or concentrate on philosophical exploration rather than hard work. In other words, most of us understand conservative values work better for kids. It stands to reason that that the conservative outlook that generates those values will work better for society as a whole.

 In a heavily hyped new book,  British scholar Tudor Parfitt claims to have found “The Lost Ark of the Covenant” after a twenty year search. Actually, the artifact he discovered in Zimbabwe is a “sacred drum” worshipped by the Lemba tribe, which claims descent from ancient Israelites. It's true that DNA testing shows these remote Africans as geneologically related to the Kohanim (or priestly families) among the Jews, but unfortunately, carbon dating shows their “ark” as less than 700 years old, so it can’t be a Biblical relic. Parfitt (who was a guest on my radio show last week) claims it may be a “replacement ark,” an argument that gives reason to respect, rather than doubt, religious tradition. Ancient Jewish sources say the original ark, containing the tablets of the law, was hidden as a precautionary measure before the Babylonians destroyed the first Temple in the sixth century B.C. It was never found, so the Second Temple functioned more than 500 years with no sacred ark, no revered tablets of the law. The priests easily could have fabricated their own “replacement ark,” but their failure to do so indicates that the original existed and exuded, as reported, an incomparable spiritual power. Parfitt's long search also suggests that this lost ark won't be found any time soon -- and will remain hidden from both saints and scholars. 

The Philadelphia City Council has voted to evict the Boy Scouts of America from the headquarters building they’ve occupied for 80 years, punishing them for not allowing openly gay scouts or scout masters. Even though Scouting’s Cradle of Liberty Council has invested millions in constructing, restoring and maintaining their historic building, it’s located on city land and politicians want to enforce their “non-discrimination” policy by terminating a time-honored relationship.  

Scouting currently serves 56,000 Philadelphia youngsters—many of them inner city kids with no fathers. Rather than destroying a cherished program because it doesn’t meet their standards, why don’t gay rights activists start a new program that does?  

If they launched their own scouting program—call it “Rainbow Scouts”—they could serve even more kids, including some who feel excluded by the Boy Scouts. By choosing to wreck an existing organization, rather than building a constructive alternative, the left exposes its underlying intolerance and negativity.

In 82 years of supremely active living, William F. Buckley transformed American conservatism profoundly and permanently. He established once and for all that the phrase “conservative intellectual” wasn’t a contradiction in terms. In the ‘50’s and ‘60’s, when the word “conservative” conjured  images of grumpy old men, the dashing Buckley showed that right wing activism could be fun, frisky, elegant and invigorating. He relished playing Bach on the harpsichord, sailing, writing spy novels, and hosting a long-running TV show on PBS—normally a bastion of establishment liberalism.

Like his friend Ronald Reagan, Buckley brought sunny, sparkling energy to the conservative moment, and shunned its bigoted, mean-spirited extremes. Ironically, his passing coincides with embarrassing controversy over an angry talk show host using Barack Obama’s middle name as a form of insult and attack. That’s the kind of cheap shot that happy warrior Bill Buckley would have characterized as beneath the dignity of his great cause.

 The audience for this year’s Oscar telecast set an all-time record for low ratings—with the lowest raw number of viewers in thirty years, and the smallest audience share since the broadcast began (at the very dawn of the TV era) in 1953. Conventional wisdom suggests that this shattering public rejection resulted from the dark, depressing and edgy nature of most of the nominated films, but the disillusionment with Hollywood goes deeper than that. It’s not just that the entertainment elite lives in its own world, far removed from every-day American realities; after all, even in its popular heyday 60 years ago, “Tinseltown” seemed like an artificial land of make-believe with larger-than-life stars completely detached from the ordinary. But in Hollywood’s Golden Age, we looked on celebrities with admiration and envy; today, we often see them with contempt and pity. The scandal-obsessed, non-stop, cable-and-internet Britney-Lindsay-Paris culture focuses on broken lives and self-destructive decadence. Like passing a car wreck, it’s sometimes hard to look away, but if we have other choices for entertainment and escape than dwelling in this dysfunctional world, we generally take them. No wonder that most Americans declined the chance to give more than three hours of their lives to visit a twisted, indulgent and increasingly weird sub-culture, inhabited by more and more deeply depressing people. .  

Is America’s “war on terror” in reality a war on Islam itself?

Most Muslim radicals insist that it is – as do many patriotic conservatives in this country who believe that any attempts to woo Islamic moderates, or to whitewash the violent and menacing essence of the Koran, distort the true nature of the current conflict.

Some of those who see Islam in all of its manifestations as our ultimate, implacable foe took me to task (in e-mail and phone calls to my radio show) for my recent support for U.S. recognition of the newly independent Muslim-majority state of Kosovo.

To these zealots, it hardly matters that the leading European powers (Britain, France, Germany) strongly support Kosovo’s separation from Serbia, or that the most outspoken opposition to Kosovar independence comes from the increasingly anti-American Putin regime in Russia. To some observers, it’s also irrelevant that ethnic Albanians (mostly non-religious, secularized Muslims) comprise more than 90% of Kosovo’s population and this overwhelming majority ardently desires its own democratic nation state. Though Orthodox Christian Serbs make up only 5% of the populace in Kosovo, critics of Bush administration Balkan policy insist that this embattled minority deserves U.S. protection and support. They discount fervent Kosovar promises that the new nation will guarantee the rights and security of its Christian residents; skeptics believe that such assurances mean nothing when provided by Muslim leaders, no matter how secular or pro-American.

“You of all people should recognize that there is no such thing as a ‘moderate Muslim,’” one correspondent scolded me. “Moderation and Islam contradict one another. Anyone who denies that contradiction is either a fool or a dupe. The tragedy in Kosovo represents just the latest example of state department mistakes based on the consistent denial that Islam, wherever it exists, is the eternal enemy of democratic values and Western Civilization.”

This increasingly popular absolutist position – whatever its historical, theological or anthropological basis – represents a threat to our short-term security and our long-term success in the very real battle against Islamism. If we accept, let alone embrace, the proposition that Islam itself is our enemy, then all of the world’s 1.3 billion Muslims become enemies of the United States, and doom us to unending and un-winnable conflict.

It’s true that some serious scholars both inside and outside the Muslim world (or “Umma”) have pointed to Koranic passages and interpretations that seem to command perpetual jihad against non-believers, but other authorities (again, including Muslims and outsiders alike) emphasize more tolerant, less bloodthirsty strains in the teachings of Mohammed. The defenders of Islam point to a few peaceful and surprisingly diverse Muslim societies (Medieval Spain, or al-Andaluz, represents perhaps the most celebrated example) that contrast with the aggressive, convert-or-die approach that appears repeatedly in Islamic history. Islamic apologists point to similar contradictions in Christian history, with literally millions of heathens forcibly converted, enslaved or put to death, not to mention the appalling blood-letting between Catholics and Protestants who slaughtered one another for centuries despite their similar proclamations of loyalty to Jesus.

For Christianity, however, the worst excesses of violent fanaticism in the name of faith occurred four hundred years ago while for Islam they took place yesterday – with suicide bombings, riots, mutilations and tyrannical theocracies in every corner of the globe. No fair-minded person can look at the role played by Muslim faith in contemporary politics, economics, culture, or human rights without questioning the frequently dysfunctional nature of Islamic ideas.

Nevertheless, any public proclamation of overall enmity toward Islam would harm America’s cause in the world at large and undermine our security at home. This approach damages our interest in five ways--

1)      It confirms the anti-American propaganda of terrorist leaders. Osama bin Laden, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and their associates have argued for years that the United States, “the Great Satan,” is the leader of a global conspiracy to destroy Islam and oppress Muslims. Any statement of hostility to Muslim faith would confirm the claims of our most dangerous enemies, enhancing their prestige and credibility. We also harm ourselves greatly if we declare that the idea of a “moderate Muslim” is a contradiction in terms: this echoes the al-Qaeda line almost precisely, as we agree with our deadliest enemies that anyone who chooses to help us or to oppose terrorism is somehow inauthentic in his Koranic commitment.

2)      It alienates our allies. Most Islamic societies fall far short of democratic norms or even civilized standards, but several of them provide crucial assistance in the war against radicalism. Jordan, Turkey, Egypt, Pakistan, Indonesia, Saudi Arabia and other Muslim nations may be far from perfect as allies, but they would each be profoundly dangerous as adversaries. Our economic and military interests around the world depend to a great extent on some cooperation with Muslim nations and official condemnation of the faith they cherish would make such cooperation vastly more difficult if not altogether impossible. No one’s entirely comfortable with the idea of more than sixty nuclear warheads in the hands of President Musharraf of Pakistan, but imagine those nukes controlled by Islamist leaders of the future with reason to believe that the U.S. wanted to wipe out Muslim belief.

3)      It puts the societies of Western Europe at profound risk.  With growing and powerful Muslim populations in France, the United Kingdom, Germany and most other European powers, an American declaration of hostility to Islam would force those societies into an impossible choice: either disassociate yourself completely from your necessary American ally, or prepare to suppress the well-established Islamic communities in your midst. Of course, it would be better for our European friends if their Muslim millions simply packed up and went home, but since there’s no chance they will do so any attempt to officially disparage Islam, or even to force instantaneous assimilation and secularization, becomes dangerous and destabilizing.

4)      It destroys our tradition of religious pluralism. If we proclaim Islam (or any other religion) as an “enemy of the state,” then we’ve clearly abandoned our cherished First Amendment tradition of neutrality among religious faiths. Constitutional scholars may argue as to whether government may encourage a generalized sense of religiosity or reverence, but no student of the First Amendment suggests that government may select one specific faith for either promotion or persecution. Studies suggest that American Muslims represent a mostly prosperous and assimilated segment of the population, but public hostility to Islam would encourage a disturbing tend toward radicalization already apparent among some young Muslims. If Islam is our enemy, should Homeland Security start closing down mosques? The very idea represents an obvious violation of the First Amendment’s “free exercise” clause.

5)      It pushes us toward a never-ending war with no exit strategy. Even those of us who have always supported the Iraq and Afghanistan wars wish that the government had learned one of the key lessons of Vietnam which once comprised a key element of the “Powell Doctrine”: never go to war without a clear, practical plan for victory and a reliable exit strategy. If we define Islam as our enemy, then what, exactly, is our feasible strategy for wiping out a resilient religious faith that’s proven disturbingly durable for more than 1,400 years? Even if we succeed in reducing the numbers and influence of the world’s Muslims we’ll still face at the very least, say, ten-percent of the current population: or more than 130 million believers. If that formidable Islamic remnant sees America as responsible for the elimination (either physically or spiritually) of most of their brothers and sisters in faith, the terrorist threat we face may actually intensify, rather than recede.

In all areas of human conflict or competition, the divide-and-conquer strategy works. In warfare, politics, international relations, business or all other contests, you win by uniting those on your side of the battle lines and dividing your adversaries.

Pushing the idea that Islam is our enemy does exactly the opposite: dividing the United States from allied states, and dividing those states at home, while instantly uniting our enemies.

Recognizing that we simply can’t succeed in “a war against Islam” isn’t to say that the followers of Mohammed have built “a religion of peace,” or even that Islam deserves identical respect to other great religions. In truth, even fair-minded Muslims must recognize that Islam today inspires unique concern with its well-documented propensity toward violence, radicalism and authoritarianism. We should encourage any and all Muslim voices against such extremism, rather than insisting that they don’t exist or can’t exist.

The statement that “Islam itself is the enemy” may deliver thrills and satisfaction with its tough, uncompromising, provocative ring, but the advance of that that idea among American conservatives and others constitutes a far more dire threat to U.S. interests than to the power or influence of the terrorists.  

  For more than a hundred years, nomination struggles in presidential campaigns have followed a familiar pattern. Bitter rivals engage in ferocious competition, generally slamming and sliming their opponents wherever possible, then come together for the sake of “party unity,” praising the ultimate victor as a choice for leadership who was obvious and inevitable all along. In 2004, for instance, Dick Gephardt, Howard Dean and Dennis Kucinich eagerly rallied around John Kerry; John Edwards even joined the ticket as his running mate. This year, Republicans provide another typical example of party divisions healing more quickly than many skeptics expected: Rudy, Fred, Mitt and lesser candidates have all gotten on board the “Straight Talk Express” and Huckabee will follow their example within a few weeks or even days. After a frontrunner captures the nomination, his opponents and some grassroots activists may nurse lingering resentments but those wounds rarely handicap a campaign in November.

 

  The current battle between Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama may, however, prove one of those exceptions in which a donnybrook in primary season does permanent damage to a candidate’s chances. This happened in the recent past for Democrats, when ideological divisions became so intense and so obvious that pretenses of party unity looked hollow and phony: in 1968, much of the left refused to rally to Hubert Humphrey, and in 1972 the party’s center never fully embraced George McGovern. Among Republicans, Pat Buchanan’s primary challenge to President George H.W. Bush fell far short of winning the nomination for the insurgent, but badly dented the incumbent’s stature and aura of competence, setting him up for defeat in November.

 

   The Hillary-Barack spat (reaching ferocious intensity just a week away from decisive primaries in Ohio and Texas) may well resemble the Bush-Buchanan tiff more than the ideological struggles of the ‘60’s and ‘70’s. As both candidates have noted, they harbor few substantive differences on issues, and the real fight between them involves personality and interest group politics rather than contrasting world views.

 

   Nevertheless, Hillary’s angry assaults on her rival (expected to reach a climax in their televised Ohio debate on Tuesday night) may harm Obama seriously for November even thought their rivalry involves a classic “personality primary” rather than the more serious “issues primary.”

 

   Barack Obama’s charismatic appeal depends on the image of a fresh face who’s above “politics as usual.” His messianic image suggests a healer and uniter who’s almost too good for the grubby realities of daily politics. His supporters, led by his wife Michelle, suggest that the Illinois Senator will not only reform our government, but repair the “hole in our souls.”

 

   In that context, the snarling back-and-forth with Hillary could damage the atmosphere of saintliness and uplift and pie-in-the-sky redemption on which Obamamania depends. The candidate is eminently defeatable in the fall if voters see him as a tarnished, manipulative, posing, Chicago political operator, impatiently ambitious and seizing his big chance with a minimum of preparation or programmatic commitment.

 

  If, on the other hand, his promoters continue to sell Barack as a cause rather than a candidate, a representative of idealism rather than ambition, he presents a tougher target for Republicans.

 

  For this reason, the GOP maintains a strong interest in seeing Hillary Clinton prevail in both the Ohio and Texas primaries, with the campaign rivalry continuing with its current heat. Every charge she’s making against St. Barack makes it easier to Republicans to level similar assaults in September and October. The next week will play an important part in this process, and further weeks of competition will help even more. With Hillary sounding increasingly exasperated (“Shame on you, Barack Obama!” declared the angry school marm) it will prove more difficult to blame Republicans for bursting the feel- good, flimsy, can’t-we-all-get-together-and-sing-Kum-Ba-Ya hot-air balloon of Obama-as-savior when the campaign gets serious in the fall.

 

  It looks all but certain that the Illinois Senator will nail down the Democratic nomination at some point, but conservatives have a real stake in encouraging Hillary to keep the battle going for a few weeks more.  

 

The best comment on Senator McCain and the New York Times actually came from uber pundit Friedrich Wilhelm Nietzsche (1844-1900) who famously observed:

"That which does not kill us, makes us stronger."

The lesson applies to politics, as well as the rest of life.

1. Many observers have noted that the New York Times charges that McCain had an “inappropriate relationship” with lobbyist Vicki Iseman are based entirely on anonymous sources. The more important point is that even these anonymous sources never actually allege a scandalous relationship; they supposedly warned McCain about the appearance of such a relationship. In the article's most telling single sentence, the new York Times writes: “It is not clear what effect the warnings had; the associates said their concerns receded in the heat of the campaign.” (Referring to the campaign of 2000, eight years ago). The obvious point is if those concerns were substantive and serious they would have intensified “in the heat of the campaign” rather than receding. This odd sentence is an indication that even the unidentified “associates” who said they were worried about McCain’s relationship dropped those concerns as the campaign advanced—a strong indication that the “concerns” were less dire than they once assumed. In any event, the nature of these charges is so vacuous, insubstantial, vague and unspecific that it’s hard to imagine any such media attack on a prominent Democrat. Please note the far more gingerly media treatment on the much-beter-sourced rumors of a John Edwards affair – not eight years ago, but this year.

2. McCain is hardly the first Republican politician smeared by media reports of creating the appearance  of an inappropriate relationship. Dan Quayle was also attacked for appearing at a charitable golf tournament with “an attractive blonde lobbyist”; the story went nowhere after emphatic denials. Gary Bauer (of all people) suffered similar attacks during his presidential campaign in 2000. President George Herbert Walker Bush faced absurd charges of an affair with a pretty female aide; he and Barbara were forced to indignantly deny it, just as McCain and Cindy did today.

3. The New York Times piece features a photo of media mogul Lowell W. Paxson, identifying him by saying that Ms. Iseman “lobbied Mr. McCain on his behalf.” The paper never identifies Paxson, however, as one of the nation’s most prominent Christian conservatives: an outspoken Evangelical whose PAX TV network attempted to offer a family-and-faith-friendly alternative to mainstream TV. McCain should be proud of any association with Bud Paxson, not ashamed of it. He should also be proud of a detail the article notes in passing, that Mr. McCain “sought to break up cable subscription packages, which some of her clients opposed.” This is an important issue for social conservatives: allowing consumers to get packages that exclude the Playboy Channel, MTV and other racy fare.

All in all, this pathetic smear should remind people about McCain’s conservative commitment, over a quarter century in Congress. He’s specifically smeared for his association with a stalwart and outspoken Christian businessman—an association with should reflect credit, not disgrace, on the Arizona Senator.

. Senator Barack Obama inspires enthusiasm that borders on ecstasy for his growing legion of followers. Instead of focusing on specific policies, his rapturous supporters embrace the sacred word “hope.”  But amidst all the claims that Obama’s themes are fresh and unprecedented, it’s worth remembering that other politicians sought power by marketing hope. When John Kennedy ran for President—and very narrowly beat Nixon—he used “High Hopes” as his campaign song, with the refrain, “he has high/apple-pie/in the sky/.hopes!” Bill Clinton billed himself as “The Man from Hope” – making constant reference to his Arkansas home town – and wrote a book called “From Hope to History.” Even Jesse Jackson drove his enthusiastic campaigns with the slogan, “Keep Hope Alive!” Barack Obama may offer himself as “the Hope Pope” – in the phrase of David Brooks – but fuzzy invocations of change and hope can’t hide the truth about proposals that mean more taxes, bigger government and less freedom. I’m Michael Medved.

With his unexpectedly decisive landslide victory in Wisconsin, Barack Obama has solidified his status as the Democratic frontrunner. His success owes less to his own political strategy than it does to a fatal mistake by Hillary Clinton. At the beginning of her campaign, Clinton made a decision to avoid an ideological battle with her rival and decided to frame the race as a choice between “experience” and “charisma,” between “work” and “words.” In other words she decided to fight Obama on personality, rather than the issues, and in terms of a compelling, appealing personality, Obama obviously wins. Clinton could have won an issues election – mobilizing the broad middle of the Democratic Party and leaving Obama to run to her left. She could have criticized him for preaching surrender on the war, for minimizing the reality of the terrorist threat, for calling unequivocally for big government and higher taxes, for rejecting the free trade heritage of Clintonism. Instead, she insisted that she and her opponent hardly differed on the issues, and it was only a question of who is better “prepared to take over as commander-in-chief from day one.” By emphasizing my “thirty-five years of work fighting for change” Hillary not only made herself sound older, but high-lighted the meaningless, trivial nature of the change she sought and, allegedly, achieved: most Democrats don’t like the results of the last thirty-five years of government policy. 

Anyone who believes that the nomination struggle was actually centered on substantive issues should try to answer two fundamental questions: who’s more liberal, Hillary or Obama? And who’s more moderate, Hillary or Obama? It’s telling that in the Democratic Party both liberals and moderates seem to be breaking for Obama. In the absence of any clear distinction on policy prescriptions, they all feel free to vote for him as an expression of the fact that they just like the guy, or as an indication that they long (like nearly all Americans) to reject our terrible history of racism, or as a reflection about incurable unease about the alternative, Hillary. She does come across as robotic and phony much of the time. If she’s not preferable to Barack on issues that matter, and she’s no more electable in November (according to polls), then what’s the basis on which she asks for votes? 

John McCain needs to learn the lessons of Hillary Clinton’s failed campaign. If he tries to emphasize his obviously superior experience and preparation for the job, he’ll lose in a landslide. Obama can easily characterize him as “yesterday’s man” (as he did in his victory speech on Tuesday night) and emphasize his opponent’s advanced age by “graciously” saluting his “fifty years of service.” He thereby makes the point that he himself isn’t even fifty years old, confirming his vacuous declaration that “we are the change that we’ve been waiting for.” 

McCain and the GOP can win the election, but only if they draw crisp, unmistakable distinctions on the issues. Voters should face big questions: do you think America will be safer if we surrender to terrorists in Iraq and elsewhere? Do you want to pay more in taxes to pay for a bigger government? Do you want to pay for your neighbor’s health insurance, or is the nation stronger when we emphasize individual responsibility? Do we want more freedom and opportunity or do we need more government supervision and regulation? 

On these issues, on these crucial choices, Republicans can win. If McCain explains those choices clearly and persuasive (and I believe he will) then his problems with movement conservatives will take care of themselves. 

If, on the other hand, he tries to run a campaign based on biography and personality, he’ll meet the same fate as Hillary Clinton. Unless McCain offers bold, positive, conservative vision for the future, and draws clear distinctions on the issues, then even this admirable war hero and maverick Naval aviator is, alas, likely to go down in flames.