Jim Bennett has a review of John O'Sullivan's new book on Reagan, Thatcher and the Pope.

Looking at alternative outcomes of the Reagan-Thatcher-John Paul II world, it is hard to see how any other leaders in any of the three seats of power could have done better, and very easy to see how they could have done worse -- all the way to outbreak of nuclear war. Therefore, while leaving any actual theodicy to more venturesome commentators, it is easy to see why some considered the advent of these three leaders (and their not-statistically-likely serial survival of assassination attempts) to be providential. Since I find theodicy to be too problematic to consider (if God does move human events directly, there's far too much moral dark matter assumed in the problem for we poor three-dimensional observers to be able to draw any conclusions from it), I think O'Sullivan spent either too much time or too little discussing that possibility. If we assume we cannot intuit divine knowledge or intention in specific human events, then that is all one can really say about the matter; if we assume one can understand such things, then the events O'Sullivan discusses would be one of the principal theological events of our century, and could easily merit not just the bulk of O'Sullivan's book, but a library full of books.

We need to come up with more leaders like them. Sadly, I don't see any in office currently, or in the current race.

"We need to come up with more leaders like them. Sadly, I don't see any in office currently, or in the current race"

There are a lot of reasons for this, but the fact that we're presently being led by the son of a former president and a leading candidate for his replacement is the wife of a former president indicates to me that the entire political class has become closed. New blood is badly needed, be it by term limits, a constitutional amendment against gerrymandering or someone getting fed up enough to fly a 747 into the Capital building ala Tom Clancy.

That's one of the things that the current enemy doesn't realise. If they chose Washington DC as their target, they would probably be doing America (and the entire Western world) a favour.

...if they chose Washington DC as their target

Ummmm...perhaps you weren't paying attention on September 11, but they did. Not that I agree with you, of course. Are you saying you share their goal?

Rand:

I am not going to attempt to describe what I mean too precisely; Tom Clancy did it better than I ever could, in "Debt of Honour" and "Executive Orders".

Of course, such a President (or a Prime Minister of GB for that matter) is impossible in today's political climate - because such a leader would have to take risks with his party's electability, and they wouldn't let him - some pigs might have to get their noses out of the trough if the risks didn't come off.

There is also the issue of the entire bureaucratic apparatus that supports a Government that meddles to an ever-increasing extent in people's affairs while doing less and less about the real problems and wasting a greater and greater proportion of the country's talent and resources.

I submit that if Washington DC (or at least the parts comprising bureaucrats and politicians) suddenly disappeared then America would be better off for it; the same applies for Westminster and used-to-be Great Britain.

No, I don't support their goals; but if they had succeeded then America would have been a better place for it.

Where is Jack Ryan when you need him? Or Josiah Bartlet, for that matter?

Instead, you have Bush and we have Blair. 'Nuff said.