That John McCain's spokesperson is sounding eerily like bin Laden these days does not surprise me. In fact, it follows nicely from a feature of conservatism from Goldwater on: the notion that the barbarians are at the gates, that all is most likely lost, and that the only way to salvage anything of civilization is, in effect, to violate every norm of civilization. This, in turn, degenerated into a subculture that celebrated any lawlessness if it were done by people claiming to have the country's best interest in mind (e.g. Oliver North). One would have thought that this strain of thinking would have died with the Cold War, but it has proven pretty durable: to some extent it has been repurposed to oppose liberal and Democratic politicians (like Bill Clinton) but the terrorist threat has given it new breath, even though there is no evidence that abiding by treaty obligations like the Geneva Convention is not sufficient to fighting such people. What about September 11? Well, a few of those guys were actually in the "do not fly" list, and a lot of people knew a lot about this stuff but weren't listened to. 9/11 was due more to bureaucratic insolvency than anything else--at least, that's what the 9/11 commission said. That the Bush team used it as a pretext for a massive power grab is disappointing but, considering the aforementioned lawlessness that has ruled conservatism for some time, it is not really too surprising.
Change, of course, can be hard. But it's interesting how conservatism has reverted under Bush's terms in office: it has gone back to a pre-Lockean conception of conservatism that defends, in different terms, the divine right of kings. Actually, it only defends the divine right of Republican kings. The others are mere usurpers. And any barbarism that a king wants to do must be defended, lest you be against the country--which is embodied in the presidency, of course.
Boy, am I glad to be rid of these people for a while.
