If the above criteria are met, then morals and conventions be damned.

Good Call Sepia.

The above posters have probably answered this already, (and more articulately) but what the hey…

“Conservative” is a conflation of two separate ideological phenomena in the States: 1) The “classical liberal”/neoliberal element (exemplified by those such as Zakaria) 2) The socially conservative (as opposed to socially progressive pro-gay rights, etc) element a central component of which is the “religious right”. Both “conservative” elements were supportive of the Iraq war – Mr. Zakaria’s initial support was grounded in the belief that economic liberalization of a formerly socialist-nationalist Iraq would be mutually beneficial to both Iraqis and Americans. He seems to have (for good reason) changed his mind.

I don’t think anyone is “giving him a pass” (at least I hope not). Although I disagree with his ideological framework, Mr. Zakaria is interesting on a few levels – he is both an intelligent mainstream analyst who speaks to the American public and a minority, who speaks on the behalf of many conservative-minded desis. On the same note, it is a bit dangerous to have Fareed Zakaria “represent” an ethnic “community” – comparable to the way that Neil Bissoondath is a minority voice who is both a speaker in and used by the mainstream political right in Canada (he has a fascinating book, Selling Illusions: the Cult of Multiculturalism in Canada)…

I think Amartya Sen is way ahead of all the other “India/ Developing World Experts”. if you get a chance, read his Nobel Prize acceptance speech.

Yesterday, I read his piece “Contrary India” in The Economist – and then had to order the book.