HART'S COMMENTARY by Jeffrey Hart

The Jeffrey Hart Column

We have recently heard speculation that the current century will be dominated by Asia, most recently by China specialist Jonathan Spence of Yale. Might happen. Not likely. When Henry Luce proclaimed "The American Century" about halfway through it, there were some demurrals. But the 20th century turned out that way.

The defeat of Spain in 1898 and the projection of the Panama Canal by Theodore Roosevelt at the turn of the century might stand at the beginning. The canal prefigured the United States as both an Atlantic and a Pacific power. The gift of the canal to Panama at the beginning of this year marks an interesting conclusion. At the pinnacle of its economic and military power, the United States is not the kind of empire that seizes territory, but the novel sort that gives it away, as it did the Philippines. If it is an empire at all, it is a benevolent one based upon commerce.

But from 1900 until the present moment, the advance of American power has been spectacular. In the middle of the century, the United States led a coalition that defeated Germany in Europe and projected its power into western Europe in what amounted to a colossal trans-Atlantic invasion. At the same time, American power reached Asia with the signing of the peace treaty with Japan in Tokyo Bay. Then the United States led another coalition which first blocked the further expansion of Soviet power ("containment") and then defeated Soviet power directly ("liberation," Berlin Wall). Today, the once-formidable Russian army is having trouble subduing Chechnya.

Accompanying that, the United States is experiencing an economic surge driven by high technology that shows no sign of slowing, and in this it has no close rival anywhere in the world. A decade ago, a gloomy book by professor Paul Kennedy, "The Rise and Fall of Great Powers," which warned of "imperial overreach," enjoyed a certain vogue. But a survey of the possibilities does not seem to confirm such fears. President Jacques Chirac of France recently aired a few counterthoughts in an interview. The next century, he said, would not be an American century because a configuration of competing centers of power would emerge. One, he said, would be a united Europe, which would be a formidable economic power and also a regional military one. China and India have the capacity to become major powers. Japan will be formidable. And Russia will right itself and be a major factor.

All of this has some plausibility, and, of course, the French, from de Gaulle through, now, Chirac, enjoy being at cross-purposes with the United States. The French minister of culture recently summed up one French attitude by calling the Paris Disneyland a "cultural Chernobyl." This sort of thing makes the French feel French. But Chirac's tour of the 21st century horizon has to confront some actualities.

Of course, a united Europe will be a major economic factor during the 21st century. But the economies on the Continent are stagnant because of large welfare-state entitlements, and though European politicians are talking about creating a military force independent of NATO, no one seriously thinks that Europe will raise the money to sustain anything serious in that direction. Even in small ventures, the Europeans depend on U.S. spy satellites, AWACS, aircraft carriers and cruise missiles. Consider a likely scenario. Iran aspires to regional dominance. It develops an intermediate-range missile capacity and several nuclear warheads and -- possibly teamed with Iraq -- threatens to seize Saudi Arabia. Saudi Arabia, with its musical comedy monarchy, of course cannot defend itself. What stands in the way of Iran is U.S. naval and air power in the area. Iran threatens a nuclear attack on Rome if its move against Saudi Arabia is blocked. No European nation or combination of them will either have a missile defense or will be able to warn Iran as convincingly as the United States about what the consequences of any such nuclear attack will be -- suicide.

The threat to Europe and the United States from Islam will be a continuous nuisance. We can expect scattered acts of fanaticism by individuals, and we can make it clear that any act of state terrorism will have dire consequences. Russia remains a large question mark. Never in its entire history has it been decently governed. Real signs of economic progress appeared between 1910 and 1914 but were derailed by war and then Bolshevism. The hope is that a reformist Russia oriented westward will gradually emerge as a capable nation. But global power? No. A capable global power would have settled Chechnya one way or the other.

China is the subject of endless fascination for the West, the mood swinging between extremes, either Golden Cathay or Menacing Mongols. But despite Chirac's opinion that China will be a superpower, the situation there is highly problematical. China's vast peasant population is more of a problem than an asset. Geographically, China is not as large as it looks on the map. China's arable eastern part is a large crescent of green land, but rapidly becomes brown plain and desert to the west. Economic development anywhere depends on stable government, and also the free flow of information. I would not bet much money on China achieving either of those. At the time of the Tiananmen Square uprising, more than 80 Chinese cities experienced comparable events. When the Deng Xiaoping regime crushed the revolt in Beijing, it had to send for provincial troops to do so, not trusting the Beijing garrison. The present regime feels seriously threatened by the Falun Gong movement -- not threatened by its meditations but by its network of communications.

Of course, we must be ready to suppress any military move against Taiwan, which might mean a war in the Taiwan Strait and attacks on Chinese rocket launchers. But China as a global power? No. Japan 10 years ago -- "Japan Inc." -- was thought to be a global superpower, capable of purchasing Manhattan. But it has sunk into the economic doldrums, seemingly unable to solve structural problems. India has shed much of the socialism of the Nehru-Gandhi era and has moved toward a genuine representative government, but its huge population, like China's, is no asset. India remains a question mark. No, President Chirac, it looks like another "American Century."

Homosexual 'Marriage'

The push for recognized "marriage" between same-sex partners goes on relentlessly and will continue to do so. This is, of course, a "sensitive" subject, so let me express my own vast sensitivity by saying that I myself have no interest in what individuals do sexually and in private. In fact, I don't want to hear about it in the ordinary course of the day. In the biography of a statesman or an artist, it might have a bearing on his public aspect and therefore be of interest. But, almost universally, I think that private behavior should remain private. In the academic world where I live, I consider it improper for an assistant professor to "come out of the closet," much less be "outed." All of this is irrelevant to his academic value. I don't care if a female assistant professor is a nymphomaniac, as long as she doesn't talk about it and manages to make it to class. Oscar Wilde famously said homosexuality is the "love that dare not speak its name." Today, however, it is the love that will not shut up.

Fundamentally, the push to legitimize homosexual "marriage" is not a push for the "benefits" that married couples now have, but a push for the legal and social acceptance of homosexual partnerships as equivalent in all ways to what the accepted meaning of the word "marriage" has been for, well, millennia. The language itself is to be wrenched to make room for other "sexual orientations," an indescribably vulgar term to describe complex and profound feelings. The cause of homosexual marriage took a big hit recently in Hawaii. In that very liberal state, judging by its voting record, a legal suit by homosexual plaintiffs desiring the "marriage" label was thought to have a good chance of succeeding. Over the course of nine years, lower courts had decided that the state's long-standing ban on same-sex "marriages" constituted unjustifiable sex discrimination under the Hawaiian Constitution. But in 1998 the voters in Hawaii spoke. The state legislature passed an amendment to the state constitution "taking the statute out of the ambit of the equal protection clause of the Hawaii Constitution." The voters followed up by ratifying this amendment by a margin of 2-1. Then the Hawaii Supreme Court turned back the suit of the plaintiffs, ruling that it was now moot because of the 1998 amendment to the state constitution.

All of this should be celebrated by adherents of constitutional process. We are, after all, a self-governing people nationwide, and the voters, exercising their judgment, decided in their wisdom against homosexual "marriage." Of course, at any time, the amendment could be repealed, just as the 18th amendment (Prohibition) to the U.S. Constitution was repealed. But the 2-1 vote to remove the consideration from the courts suggests that repeal is not in the cards.

Meanwhile, during the nine years of litigation, 30 states passed legislation that would have enabled them not to honor homosexual "marriages" in case Hawaii allowed them. Thirty states! The New York Times, speaking for a considerable segment of liberal opinion, has been surprisingly radical on this issue. It called the action of the 30 states an "ugly backlash" against the prospect of homosexual "marriages" in Hawaii. It also described resistance to homosexual "marriages" as "reactionary" and viewed legal acceptance of such arrangements as "inevitable." The use there of such terms as "reactionary" and "inevitable" is itself rather ugly. The editors of the Times seem to have discerned some irresistible march of history toward homosexual "marriage." Such extreme language sounds desperate. Now enters the arena the State of Vermont, in a state supreme court ruling that the Times celebrated as "momentous." The Vermont court decided that, based on the state constitution, the state legislature must pass legislation giving homosexual couples the same legal rights and protections enjoyed by traditionally married couples. The Vermont legislature, controlled by liberal Democrats, might however find it more comfortable politically to expand the existing domestic partnership law than to legitimize homosexual "marriages."

We will see how this particular ball bounces. Vermont is undoubtedly the most left-wing state in the nation. Its sole representative in the U.S. House of Representatives is Bernie Sanders, once the socialist mayor of Burlington. The city of Burlington, on Lake Champlain and the site of the University of Vermont, is San Francisco East. The Vermont income tax is huge, Scandinavian-style, allowing for a large welfare class, a bloated bureaucracy and plenty of hippies living on benefits. Vermont's two senators, Patrick Leahy and James Jeffords, are relentlessly left. The other day in Vermont, I noticed a "No Smoking" sign in an outdoor parking lot. Political correctness can go no further. Needless to say, I live and shop in New Hampshire and avoid the huge Vermont sales tax, much of which supports "diverse" lifestyles. If the Vermont legislature legitimizes homosexual partnerships as "marriages," the rest of the states should and no doubt will build a firewall of legislation against it. I have no objection to such partnership privileges as hospital visits normally accorded to family members, and so on. Partners of course can make out mutually agreeable wills. But marriage, no. George Orwell, it is well known, saw the corrupting possibilities that flow from the willful distortion of language. This is because language tends to embody collective wisdom and experience.

What the word "marriage" means we all know very well and have so known so far back as the records of the human race extend.

On the other hand, resistance to homosexuality extends just about as far back, the disapproval being almost universal. I have heard homosexuality called "Greek love." Well, Plato -- in his "Laws" and his "Gorgias" -- regarded homosexual acts as worthy of the death penalty. This universal, or near universal, disapproval cannot be called "bigotry." It is based upon collective experience and high regard for the institution of marriage. Since this negative estimate of homosexual behavior is so nearly universal, it amounts to a sort of vote of mankind existing over many centuries, and it is based upon experience of homosexual behavior in various aspects. Naturally enough, this has been codified in religious teaching.

I notice that Bradley, Gore, McCain and Bush all oppose homosexual "marriage." They know what the nation thinks. If Vermont goes for such "marriage," let us hope the other states wall it off legislatively and keep it isolated, refusing to honor its revolutionary definitions.

Russert Interview Of Bush Changes Campaign's Dynamics

Between when he delivered an address on foreign policy, and when he answered questions from Tim Russert for an hour on NBC's "Meet the Press," Texas Gov. George W. Bush changed the dynamics of the Republican race. At the Reagan Library, Bush delivered a foreign-policy speech that surveyed the major pressure points of U.S. foreign policy. He situated himself in the mainstream of prudent internationalism, which has been the core of Republican foreign policy since 1945.

Later, TV commentators expressed surprise at the amount of time he gave to disavowing "isolationism," observing that he seemed to be differentiating himself more from Pat Buchanan than from Al Gore and Bill Bradley. In fact, Bush was not referring to Buchanan at all, but rather responding to attacks from the Clinton-Gore White House that generally accused the Republicans of "isolationism."

Bush made nuanced but important distinctions between his approach and that of the Clinton foreign policy team. On China policy, Clinton has veered between referring to the Chinese government as "the butchers of Beijing" and praising them as "strategic partners." Bush proposed a steadier course - "good will" but "without illusion." He characterized Beijing as a "competitor" rather than a "partner," and he saw grounds for possible future conflict, especially over Taiwan. While acknowledging that there is "one China," he also emphasized that we would, according to our treaty with Taiwan, respond to any use of force against it.

The glue that held all this together was his emphasis on military strength, considerably reduced now, as the basis for peace. And, concomitant to that, he left no doubt about his commitment to missile defense. Nevertheless, the media-intellectual caste would not give up its view that Bush is a lightweight. Its position was that anyone can read a speech. The New York Times said Bush had been "tutored." Tom Brokaw and Dan Rather referred to Bush's previous alleged "gaffes" regarding foreign policy.

Bush showed with Russert that there was a man behind the speech; this was no airhead or feckless frat boy. Russert is a tough but generally fair questioner. He asked direct and important questions, and he received straight, firm answers. Bush also demonstrated a nice spontaneous sense of humor. Russert also pressed Bush on "hate crimes." Special penalties for crimes against blacks, Hispanics, gays and so on are a popular idea with liberals.

Bush replied that Texas has sentenced to death two men convicted in the dragging murder of a black man, said that he supports the death penalty, and that he did not favor penalties based upon group identification. As for abortion, Bush said that he opposes abortion, would try to recommend adoption, favored parental notification, but that he would not apply a litmus test on the matter for judicial nominations.

The Republicans have their nominee, and it will be very difficult for the media-intellectual caste to condescend to him now.

Russert Interview Of Bush Changes Campaign's Dynamics

Between when he delivered an address on foreign policy, and when he answered questions from Tim Russert for an hour on NBC's "Meet the Press," Texas Gov. George W. Bush changed the dynamics of the Republican race. At the Reagan Library, Bush delivered a foreign-policy speech that surveyed the major pressure points of U.S. foreign policy. He situated himself in the mainstream of prudent internationalism, which has been the core of Republican foreign policy since 1945.

Later, TV commentators expressed surprise at the amount of time he gave to disavowing "isolationism," observing that he seemed to be differentiating himself more from Pat Buchanan than from Al Gore and Bill Bradley. In fact, Bush was not referring to Buchanan at all, but rather responding to attacks from the Clinton-Gore White House that generally accused the Republicans of "isolationism."

Bush made nuanced but important distinctions between his approach and that of the Clinton foreign policy team. On China policy, Clinton has veered between referring to the Chinese government as "the butchers of Beijing" and praising them as "strategic partners." Bush proposed a steadier course - "good will" but "without illusion." He characterized Beijing as a "competitor" rather than a "partner," and he saw grounds for possible future conflict, especially over Taiwan. While acknowledging that there is "one China," he also emphasized that we would, according to our treaty with Taiwan, respond to any use of force against it.

The glue that held all this together was his emphasis on military strength, considerably reduced now, as the basis for peace. And, concomitant to that, he left no doubt about his commitment to missile defense. Nevertheless, the media-intellectual caste would not give up its view that Bush is a lightweight. Its position was that anyone can read a speech. The New York Times said Bush had been "tutored." Tom Brokaw and Dan Rather referred to Bush's previous alleged "gaffes" regarding foreign policy.

Bush showed with Russert that there was a man behind the speech; this was no airhead or feckless frat boy. Russert is a tough but generally fair questioner. He asked direct and important questions, and he received straight, firm answers. Bush also demonstrated a nice spontaneous sense of humor. Russert also pressed Bush on "hate crimes." Special penalties for crimes against blacks, Hispanics, gays and so on are a popular idea with liberals.

Bush replied that Texas has sentenced to death two men convicted in the dragging murder of a black man, said that he supports the death penalty, and that he did not favor penalties based upon group identification. As for abortion, Bush said that he opposes abortion, would try to recommend adoption, favored parental notification, but that he would not apply a litmus test on the matter for judicial nominations. The Republicans have their nominee, and it will be very difficult for the media-intellectual caste to condescend to him now.