READER EMAIL: WELCH RESPONDS. Welch in bold, me in plain text. He’s responding to this post.

* You think free trade is fair trade.

YUP

* You cheer for Wolfowitz and Rumsfeld.

RUMSFELD ONLY, 70% OF THE TIME

* You think “caring about the poor” means welfare reform, school vouchers, and volunteering at your local homeless shelter.

NO, THOUGH I THINK ALL HAVE THEIR USES

[my reply] Oh, sure. I’d never suggest this is an exhaustive definition of “caring for the poor.” In fact, it misses almost all the important things. Just wanted to get in something about two solutions (welf. ref. and vouchers) that The Nation can’t stand. [and for more on this, see the blogwatch below.]

* You think the West is just better.

WITHIN THE U.S., ESPECIALLY

[my reply] Yeah. Pro-West stuff can get simplistic, but the Western focus on the individual is extraordinary in contrast to the individual’s role in Chinese, possibly Islamic, and (to the limited extent that I know about this) some pre-colonial African thought.

* You think unions screw the working man.

SOMETIMES, BUT NOT AS A BASIC DEFINITION

[my reply] I see this as “sad but true” (and not necessary–unions could be terrific, but instead suck).

* You find yourself saying stuff like, “I didn’t change–the liberals changed!”

WELL … I MUST CONFESS I SAY THIS A LOT.

* Your ideal presidential candidate is Colin Powell, Condoleezza Rice, or James Lileks.

CLOSE! GLENN REYNOLDS

What’s that, then, 3.68?

I also:

* support universal health insurance

* would abolish the death penalty

* think that campaign finance is utterly corrupt & awful, though I have no idea how best to fix it

* think that Israel should withdraw from the settlements unilaterally, regardless of how evil the Palestinian leadership is

* think that, while the U.S. is on balance a major source for good in the world, it risks being f’d forever by virtue of its dominance, and so should strive to scale back its commitments — especially military commitments, in places (Japan, Western Europe) that can afford to defend themselves & in fact probably need to be force-fed the maturity that comes with being totally responsible for their own affairs.

* like preserving open space, restoring river flows, blocking various toxic whatevers on a purely NIMBY basis … also believe global warming is a threat, though I don’t want to argue about it

* would legalize pot, and overhaul the ridiculous drug laws (including a possible withdrawal from our Columbia participation)

* am pro-choice, and immediately bored to annoyance when someone gets excited about forcing the government to intrude on the right to have an abortion

[I replied that I’m with him on the death penalty, the Drug War, and the perils of foreign (inc. military) aid. Prefer free-market solutions to environmental problems, which he may agree with. Unsure of much of the rest, except, of course, abortion.]

Etc. So am I still a mod-con?

[my reply] No clue! It doesn’t really matter, of course–the q. was meant to spark consideration, not to come to any conclusion (just yet). Give it time… perhaps you will come over to the Dark Side…