Liberalism's Dilemma

Discussion in 'Politics' started by Adam's Apple, Jun 18, 2005.

  1. Adam's Apple
    Offline

    Adam's Apple Senior Member

    Joined:
    Apr 25, 2004
    Messages:
    4,092
    Thanks Received:
    445
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Ratings:
    +447
    Liberalism's Dilemma
    By Carroll Andrew Morse for Tech Central Station
    Published 06/16/2005

    Excerpts from article:

    Liberalism has been unable to put together a program for engaging the world of failed and repressive states -- the world that spawns modern terrorism -- because liberalism has not come to terms with, or perhaps even accepted, the limitations of its Wilsonian principles. Despite the mounting historical evidence, liberals continue to insist that the theoretical illiberality of foreign intervention and administration always outweighs the actual illiberality of state-sponsored violence and repression.

    The original idea behind liberalism -- freeing the individual from being suffocated by traditional institutions -- has fallen to a distant third amongst liberal priorities. Defending the sovereignty of other states and strengthening supranational institutions take priority over protecting the lives and rights of individuals. The supposed enemy of liberalism, President George W. Bush, gives liberal ideals a higher place in his international decision making than most liberals do. (As Beinart notes, President Bill Clinton did undertake a war in Kosovo, "without U.N. backingÂ…in response to internal events in a sovereign country", in contravention of Wilsonian principles, but this never evolved into a liberal doctrine that could be applied to future situations.)

    As long as liberals cling to the belief that advancing liberal ends and defending the absolute power of indigenous governments are one an the same, deference to government authority will force liberals to retreat from violent conflicts -- like state sponsored campaigns of terrorism -- that do not involve conventional interstate warfare. The result is the liberal movement that exists today, a movement disengaged from foreign affairs because it is unwilling to confront the conflicting nature of its priorities.

    The problem is that the front lines of the war on terrorism -- state sponsors of terrorism like Syria and Iran, and Middle Eastern autocracies like Saudi Arabia and Egypt -- are not places controlled by governments that are open to being changed by development aid. A liberal program for smothering terrorism with nation building cannot begin until liberals sign on to a plan for deposing regimes that view the creation of liberal institutions as a threat to their power. Liberals who remain absolutist in their Wilsonian faith will never get their opportunity to prove they are the better nation builders, unless they believe they can talk terrorist sponsoring states into abandoning violence for political gain -- the attitude of the softs that Beinart rejects -- or they wait for another attack on America that justifies immediate action against a regime harboring terrorists, or they pursue a Carterite policy of ignoring enemies and fight a war on terrorism solely against allies willing to accept aid.

    for full article:
    http://www.techcentralstation.com/061605B.html
     
  2. 007
    Offline

    007 Charter Member Supporting Member

    Joined:
    May 8, 2004
    Messages:
    38,235
    Thanks Received:
    7,841
    Trophy Points:
    1,130
    Ratings:
    +11,801
    Excelent article.

    It should give people pause to stop and wonder, "why is there a liberal thought proccess"?

    Liberals are useless.
     
  3. Gunny
    Offline

    Gunny Gold Member

    Joined:
    Dec 27, 2004
    Messages:
    44,689
    Thanks Received:
    6,753
    Trophy Points:
    198
    Location:
    The Republic of Texas
    Ratings:
    +6,770
    There IS a "liberal thought process?"
     
  4. Gabriella84
    Online

    Gabriella84 Guest

    Ratings:
    +0
    I've often thought the same about conservative. I figured if they needed an opinion about something, they would turn on Fox or listen to Limbaugh or Hannity.
     
  5. OCA
    Offline

    OCA Senior Member

    Joined:
    Feb 1, 2004
    Messages:
    7,014
    Thanks Received:
    223
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Washington D.C.
    Ratings:
    +223
    Ooooh intellectualism at its best. Can't liberals do anything but complain and obstruct?
     
  6. ScreamingEagle
    Offline

    ScreamingEagle Gold Member

    Joined:
    Jul 5, 2004
    Messages:
    12,885
    Thanks Received:
    1,609
    Trophy Points:
    245
    Ratings:
    +2,158
    Like you would turn on Airhead America? :boobies:
     
  7. Gunny
    Offline

    Gunny Gold Member

    Joined:
    Dec 27, 2004
    Messages:
    44,689
    Thanks Received:
    6,753
    Trophy Points:
    198
    Location:
    The Republic of Texas
    Ratings:
    +6,770
    Well, you figured wrong. I listen to neither Sean Hannity nor Rush Limbaugh. I DO turn on Fox News so I don't have to weed through all the left-wingnut, anit-US, anti-Bush, anti-anything that is right or makes perfectly good sense messages the liberal media churns out daily by the ton.
     

Share This Page