While The Weekly Standard has to make do with using Frederick Kagan’s wife to write articles proclaiming the Kagan surge plan a success, The Washington Post believes in integrity and trots out brother Robert Kagan to do it instead. Maybe someday we can get Donald Kagan’s take on all this. If only the whole world were made up of members of the Kagan family, then maybe George W. Bush would be a really popular president.

At any rate, you’re not supposed to mention Robert Kagan in polite professional punditry circles without observing that he’s much smarter and a much more honest writer than your average neocon. This pearl of wisdom even has the virtue of being true. Sadly, as Glenn Greenwald exhaustively demonstrates, this really isn’t saying very much. For a neocon, he has a great analytic track record on Iraq, which means his track record is horrible rather than, say, horrifyingly horrible. That he gets to slander his employers at the Post in the first graf of his terrible column merely demonstrates how nice it must be to be a conservative . . . well-worked refs are the best refs to have.

The National Assocation of Evangelicals has rebuffed an effort by James Dobson and other old guard preachers-slash-GOP-operatives to get the NAE to drop a “creation care” plank expressing the need to combat global warming and return to an exclusive focus on banning abortions and cutting taxes.

Much more from Ed Kilgore here.

I have to say, I really think more pro-lifers should do blog posts spelling out the close connections between opposition to abortion rights and opposition to contraceptives generally. While I obviously disagree with the “double no” conclusion of Katherine Jean-Lopez and the Pope, I agree with them about the connectedness of these issues and I’m fairly confident that the more people who see the linkage, the less viable pro-life politics will become.

Tony Smith has a pretty great article in today’s Post. I’m just going to quote a bunch of it:

Iraq had flustered the congressional Democrats because Democrats don’t have an agreed position on what America’s role in the world should be. They want to change the Bush administration’s policy in Iraq without discussing the underlying ideas that produced it. And although they now cast themselves as alternatives to President Bush, the fact is that prevailing Democratic doctrine is not that different from the Bush-Cheney doctrine.

Many Democrats, including senators who voted to authorize the war in Iraq, embraced the idea of muscular foreign policy based on American global supremacy and the presumed right to intervene to promote democracy or to defend key U.S. interests long before 9/11, and they have not changed course since. Even those who have shifted against the war have avoided doctrinal questions.

But without a coherent alternative to the Bush doctrine, with its confidence in America’s military preeminence and the global appeal of “free market democracy,” the Democrats’ midterm victory may not be repeated in November 2008. Or, if the Democrats do win in 2008, they could remain staked to a vision of a Pax Americana strikingly reminiscent of Bush’s. . . .

The early positions of the 2008 Democratic presidential candidates illustrate their party’s problem. The front-runner, Hillary Clinton, has not moved from her traditional support of the DLC’s basic position — she criticizes the conduct of the war, but not the idea of the war. Former senator John Edwards and Sen. Barack Obama are more outspoken; both call the war a serious mistake, but neither has articulated a vision for a more modest U.S. role in the world generally.

It isn’t easy to offer a true alternative. The challenges to world order are many, as are the influential special interests in this country that want an aggressive policy: globalizing corporations, the military-industrial complex, the pro-Israel lobbies, those who covet Middle Eastern oil. The nationalist conviction that we are indeed “the indispensable nation” will continue to tempt our leaders to overplay their hand. The danger lies in believing that our power is beyond challenge, that the righteousness of our goals is beyond question and that the real task is not to reformulate our role in the world so much as to assert more effectively a global American peace.

As I say, I agree.