> The Times would have been better off with Richard
> Brookhiser or Dorothy Rabinowitz. This guy's an
> embarrassment.
>
Yeah, the Oakeshott column was terrible -- it managed to be pretentious and sophomoric at the same time. Even worse for Brooks side, it revealed a gaping contradiction in contemporary right-wing thinking: on the way hand, conservatives pose as hard-headed skeptics who have little faith in the ability of government to solve problems (unintentional consequenences, epistimologicaly modesty etc); on the other hand, they have extravagant schemes for re-making other cultures (bringing democracy to the heart of the Middle East, etc.). Well, you can believe in one, or you can believe in the other. To believe in both, and to try to square out the difference in an op-ed column, is nutty.