What Makes a Liberal? Part II...

[ciplexian]

True, but the Reagan 80's were not characterized by dogmatic economic libertarianism. The 1980's economy was still mainly a product of 20th century liberalism's mix of regulation and transfer payments with an otherwise free market. Wealthy inequality today is worse than it was then and corporate power is much greater. On the balance on economics, the GOP today has shifted towards an equally if not more ideological position on economics than the Democrats.

The main thing with the GOP today though is that it's become infused with the civilizationalist mindset described above more than the Democrats have been infused with socialistic thinking. The primary revolution in Bush's foreign policy for example is not neocon democracy-building in Iraq but a free-for-all view of foreign policy.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

While elements of libertarian economics (Reaganomics, GATT) and civilizationalism (Afghanistan) played a role in the Cold War, especially in the 1980s, it was primarily a struggle between liberal societies (Western Europe, Japan, U.S. in the 50s-80s) and communist ones, even toward the end.

It was reagan's demonstrated willingness to escalate our arms production and put them in place for use that also had a great effect. His foreign policy was effective. The lib dems called him a warmonger just like they do bush now. SOme things never change.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

The thing with the GOP today is that it's become infused with the civilizationalist mindset described above more than the Democrats have been infused with socialistic thinking. The primary revolution in Bush's foreign policy for example is not neocon democracy-building in Iraq but a free-for-all view of foreign policy.

When your openly declared global enemy has a civilizalionist mindset, it paints you into a corner.

A "free for all" view? Is that similar to bush's "Smirking Cowboy Doctrine"?

 

[ciplexian]

It was reagan's demonstrated willingness to escalate our arms production and put them in place for use that also had a great effect. His foreign policy was effective. The lib dems called him a warmonger just like they do bush now. SOme things never change.

There are some key differences though. Firstly, Reagan prepared for war in order to avoid it. Bush did just the opposite, initiating war without preparing for it very well. Secondly, Reagan's vision and power base was an appeal to a unified free world and nothing more. Bush on the other hand is seeking to put America on a civilizational clash not just with the Arab world but with our former allies in Europe and elsewhere. He is facilitating this by abandoning the international system built post-1945, which was led by the U.S. and which mostly served U.S. interests quite well.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

There are some key differences though. Firstly, Reagan prepared for war in order to avoid it. Bush did just the opposite, initiating war without preparing for it very well.

As I recall. We were attacked first. Remember 9/11?. And before you go off: Saddam had relationships with known global terrorists.

Secondly, Reagan's vision and power base was an appeal to a unified free world and nothing more. Bush on the other hand is seeking to put America on a civilizational clash not just with the Arab world but with our former allies in Europe and elsewhere. He is facilitating this by abandoning the international system built post-1945, which was led by the U.S. and which mostly served U.S. interests quite well.

1. There were 30+ nations in the Coalition of the Willing.

2.Our "allies" in Europe were being bribed through the oil for food scandal. They're corrupt scum, willing to side with terrorists against the u.s. for their own malignant profit.

 

[ciplexian]

And before you go off: Saddam had relationships with known global terrorists.

This is something that can be debated ad infinitum.

1. There were 30+ nations in the Coalition of the Willing.

2.Our "allies" in Europe were being bribed through the oil for food scandal. They're corrupt scum, willing to side with terrorists against the u.s. for their own malignant profit.

These are all minor points. Human corruptibility is hardly the new story here. The big picture is whether America simply wants to be the biggest kid on the block or does it actually want to be a world leader. There is a difference.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

This is something that can be debated ad infinitum.

No. There's a definite right answer. He had them. He made payments to suicide bombers families in the palestinian conflict.

These are all minor points. Human corruptibility is hardly the new story here. The big picture is whether America simply wants to be the biggest kid on the block or does it actually want to be a world leader. There is a difference.

And I'm telling you we are the only entity with a consistent track record of service to humanity as a whole. If our goal was to take over the planet we would have done it already. Leadership is, however, more responsibility than the wannabes and glory hounds understand; we frankly don't want the headache of world dominion.

The U.N. is a joke. We're all that's left. We do what has to be done. For the people.

 

[ciplexian]

No. There's a definite right answer. He had them. He made payments to suicide bombers families in the palestinian conflict.

Eh, and so did the Saudis. So why didn't the Israelis go in and get him? You aren't gonna tell me whole war was done just because of some Palestinian suicide bombers.

And I'm telling you we are the only entity with a consistent track record of service to humanity as a whole. If our goal was to take over the planet we would have done it already. Leadership is, however, more responsibility than the wannabes and glory hounds understand; we frankly don't want the headache of world dominion.

The U.N. is a joke. We're all that's left. We do what has to be done. For the people.

The U.N. is only "a joke" now because it's supposed to be a U.S.-led organization, only the U.S. no longer believes in it! And who ever said anything about world dominion? What we have is a lot of different places, some more messed up than others. Yet what happens elsewhere around the globe affects us here in the U.S. as well. And those folks over in "Old Europe" and Latin America and even the Middle East generally want stability and development just like us. So what's the best way to ensure that there is stability is the world... is to work together. Otherwise you have a degeneration to the 'great-power' politics of the pre-1945 era, which is inherently more unstable no matter how unilateral. And it's even moreso since this time the 'great-power's are not states but radical Islamic ideology, various nationalisms, and various ideologies. All of these things should be controlled, and we can't do that alone.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

Eh, and so did the Saudis. So why didn't the Israelis go in and get him? You aren't gonna tell me whole war was done just because of some Palestinian suicide bombers.

I have issues with the saudis as well. But we can't just attack everybody all at once. A mixture of war and diplomacy may prove fruitful.

The U.N. is only "a joke" now because it's supposed to be a U.S.-led organization, only the U.S. no longer believes in it! And who ever said anything about world dominion? What we have is a lot of different places, some more messed up than others. Yet what happens elsewhere around the globe affects us here in the U.S. as well. And those folks over in "Old Europe" and Latin America and even the Middle East generally want stability and development just like us. So what's the best way to ensure that there is stability is the world... is to work together. Otherwise you have a degeneration to the 'great-power' politics of the pre-1945 era, which is inherently more unstable no matter how unilateral. And it's even moreso since this time the 'great-power's are not states but radical Islamic ideology, various nationalisms, and various ideologies. All of these things should be controlled, and we can't do that alone.

The U.N. is a joke because we lost faith in it? You're a joke. That's the funniest thing I've read so far today.

Do you believe there is no "power politics" going on around us in the world? You don't see our allies helping terrorists get arms and nukes to use against us? open your eyes, jerky! Rubberneck!

 

[ciplexian]

I have issues with the saudis as well. But we can't just attack everybody all at once. A mixture of war and diplomacy may prove fruitful.

Nor can we plan to attack every nation that has ever gotten involved in a violent dispute.

The U.N. is a joke because we lost faith in it? You're a joke. That's the funniest thing I've read so far today.

Do you believe there is no "power politics" going on around us in the world? You don't see our allies helping terrorists get arms and nukes to use against us? open your eyes, jerky! Rubberneck!

That must be a joke.

In case not, this would be my reply: You think our allies want terrorists to get arms and nukes to use against us? Which world are you living in? Our allies are our allies primarily because they are rich, and they are rich primarily because of the vast financial, industrial and trade regime centered around the U.S. called the modern world. At which the U.N. is, or should be, the primary organization for coordination among all nations. And yes, the U.N.'s relevance is to a large degree dependent on the extent to which the U.S. values it.

 

[ciplexian]

It's supposed to be world leading orginization but when you have countries like France with veto power that promise Iraq to use it against the US for monet through the oil for food program, When you have the likes of Russia and Germany sending over weapons that are clearly against the resolutions put forth and agreed upon by the same countries, and in the end when none of them will enforce their own resolution you end up with a failed orginization! Like it or not the UN has failed miserably and in many eyes are irrelevant in the war on terrorism!

Yes the U.N. has had failures. But it did after all authorize use of force in 1990 when Saddam Hussein was a clear aggressor, and it did succeed in getting the weapons inspectors back in when Bush worked through it. All in all, I just feel it's better to try and work through some sort of international order than just do everything on the backs of ourseleves and whoever happens to want to come along. Over the long term, abandoning any sort of international order is a recipie for instability.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

Nor can we plan to attack every nation that has ever gotten involved in a violent dispute.

No kidding. So perhaps not attacking saudi arabia is an expression of this same sentiment, despite how you frame it as a failure on bush's part.

That must be a joke.

In case not, this would be my reply: You think our allies want terrorists to get arms and nukes to use against us? Which world are you living in?

Yes. This one.

And yes, the U.N.'s relevance is to a large degree dependent on the extent to which the U.S. values it.

In that case, it seems they'd try to please us a bit more.

 

[Deornwulf]

Eh, and so did the Saudis. So why didn't the Israelis go in and get him? You aren't gonna tell me whole war was done just because of some Palestinian suicide bombers.



The U.N. is only "a joke" now because it's supposed to be a U.S.-led organization, only the U.S. no longer believes in it! And who ever said anything about world dominion? What we have is a lot of different places, some more messed up than others. Yet what happens elsewhere around the globe affects us here in the U.S. as well. And those folks over in "Old Europe" and Latin America and even the Middle East generally want stability and development just like us. So what's the best way to ensure that there is stability is the world... is to work together. Otherwise you have a degeneration to the 'great-power' politics of the pre-1945 era, which is inherently more unstable no matter how unilateral. And it's even moreso since this time the 'great-power's are not states but radical Islamic ideology, various nationalisms, and various ideologies. All of these things should be controlled, and we can't do that alone.

I think you are mistaken on the what has brought about the downfall of the United Nations. The very fact that America has lead it in the past is what is causing it to become ineffective now. The European Union, with France and Germany struggling to lead it, has been manipulating things to wrest control of the UN from America into its own hands. The UN is failing because there are almost no countries left that believe in the original charter, rather they view the UN as an entity to be used to further their own ideology.

You made some critical comments on the rise of ideology and nationalism on the part of the Republican party. Regardless of the validity, would you agree that nationalism is on the rise across the world? There are several countries who would fit your definition of being ruled by "civilizationism." So what is the counter against nationalism and/or civilizationism other than becoming the same in order to stave off attacks of other nations?

 

[ciplexian]

I think you are mistaken on the what has brought about the downfall of the United Nations. The very fact that America has lead it in the past is what is causing it to become ineffective now. The European Union, with France and Germany struggling to lead it, has been manipulating things to wrest control of the UN from America into its own hands. The UN is failing because there are almost no countries left that believe in the original charter, rather they view the UN as an entity to be used to further their own ideology.

You made some critical comments on the rise of ideology and nationalism on the part of the Republican party. Regardless of the validity, would you agree that nationalism is on the rise across the world? There are several countries who would fit your definition of being ruled by "civilizationism." So what is the counter against nationalism and/or civilizationism other than becoming the same in order to stave off attacks of other nations?

Deornwulf,

France and Germany cannot lead any substantive global body. In fact no country can lead any substantive global body except for the U.S., since the U.S. is the only global power. It is up for the U.S. therefore to build an international system that promotes the core values that we believe will be beneficial to countries in the world-- human rights, democracy, free markets, economic development, while at the same time balancing that with a respect of individual countries' unique characteristics and sovereignties. Such a system can only be built on a belief in multilateral cooperation among diverse powers for the sake of greater goals that all can agree on. Economic development. Arms control. Human rights. Things such as the UN sponsors.

To the extent that the Bush administration hasn't shown any interest-- beginning from January 20 2001, in building these ideas, and showed more interest even before September 11 of disregarding the science of global warming, undermining arms control efforts (that had once been pushed by the U.S. itself), and allowing traditional alliances fall apart, this global leadership responsibility seems to be rejected, or at least brushed off. Bush wants to build democracy in Iraq. Not all countries in the world are, or will in the medium future be democracies. How can democracies and non-democracies work together? And also, how should democracies relate to one another? We should achieve something more than just following geopolitics in the realm of international policy. Because in that psychological vacuum civilizationalism becomes an ideology which leads to instability.

Yes I would agree that civilizationalism is on the rise around the world. It has been since 1967. Almost certainly the evidence has shown that civilizationalism leads either to violence or to impediments to mutually beneficial cooperation, whereas the international cooperation has produced broad economic and social benefits for the participants. The problem is that globalization has become too homogenized, too bland, to crude, offering nothing in the way of identity. I'm not against nationalism or civilizationalism per se. Separate civilizations exists for certain psychological and practical benefits. Competition, diversity, identity, membership...

My concern is only that it should be placed within a larger developmental context, that there is something else besides Islam or militant secularism or Chinese nationalism or American Christendom that checks and balances these forces and provides for a common ground between world civilizations through which the substantial peaceful and cooperative benefits of diversity can be realized. Everything is about a delicate balance... whether in your personal diet, or in global affairs. The answer in my opinion is to promote indigenous countercurrents to radical civilizationalism which are nevertheless sensitive--yes "sensitive"-- to the concerns of local conservatives. One specific policy initiative I personally feel would go a long way would be to balance economic aid between Israel and the Palestinians and phase out military aid to that region altogether. This would really dampen grassroots anti-Americanism in the Arab world, to the extent that is still possible. But really it is an entire mindset over another.

 

[ciplexian]

Yes. This one.

In that case I have to disagree. They are in the same system we are in. When America goes down it's not Namibia that suffers. It's France. The fact that Americans are mostly Christians and French are mostly secularists doesn't alter the fact that when the WTC gets attacked, the French have no clue as to why anyone who do such a thing and are outraged, and their economy gets hit almost as bad as ours does.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

In that case I have to disagree. They are in the same system we are in. When America goes down it's not Namibia that suffers. It's France. The fact that Americans are mostly Christians and French are mostly secularists doesn't alter the fact that when the WTC gets attacked, the French have no clue as to why anyone who do such a thing and are outraged, and their economy gets hit almost as bad as ours does.

You disagree? Nope. It is this world where the U.N. coddles terrorist nations and allies with them for political gain. Watch the news, idiot.

 

[Zhukov]

(since the neocons' stock goes down with fortunes in Iraq, where Fukyaman democracy-spreading is running into civilizational resistance)

The 'end state' of liberal democracy predicted by Fukuyama was something that a nation-state would arrive at inevitably and relatively peacefully, quite contrary to the what is going on in Iraq.

You've got it backwards.

The Neo-Cons are the Civilizationists who are acting in this, the midst of a clash of civilizations. The 'civilizational resistance' you mention is being dealt with with tanks and marines. That's not an End of History mentality.

 

[Zhukov]

So I guess "people who genuinely believe in liberalism" doesn't count?

Many who believe in (classical) liberalism think this country is sufficiently liberal already.

People who do not are leftists.

 

[hylandrdet]

On behalf of the liberals, I will be silent ; however, I would like to tell you that Kennedy was no liberal; he was a democrat, but no liberal. Had he been a liberal, he would had enacted the Civil Rights Bill that was sitting on his desk during his presidency, but wouldn't out of fear of losing the south in '64.

The Nixon's campaign revolved around instilling fear that Kennedy will impose his "catholic moral values" upon us by making his decisions based on the Pope's opinion.

But let's assume that he was a liberal; in which case, your posting was a huge historical endorsement for Bill Clinton. When Clinton took over office, the Reagan/Bush(Sr) administrations had spent trillions of dollars in the military in order to defeat the Soviets in the Cold War. As a result, we won the war, but lost the economy.

Bill Clinton rescued our economy by using the same principles as JFK; take as much money as we can gather and invest it into the private sector, then turn around and cut government spending. In doing so, the economy had gotten stronger, the government received more money, therefore, there was no need to raise taxes.

Bill Clinton angered the nation with his historic tax raise, but in the end, it was the only tax raise he'd made and it left us with the highest surplus in over 30 years. Conservative leaders criticized Clinton for "stealing their ideas"; he didn't steal their ideas, he stole Kennedy's ideas. The GOP then tried to tell America, "No, Ronald Reagan did it". I blew that off by saying the following...

"Jeff Gordon's car was given to him by his dad... Do I see his dad's name on the trophies? No! Why? Because even though the car was given to him, Jeff still had to go out there and drive that car."

As far as morality is concerned, you're kidding right? I'd studied John Kennedy, I'd met his widow Jackie O; Bill Clinton is no JFK...Bill only had ONE known affair during his presidency.

To sum it up; give it a rest. The only difference between the left then and now lies within three issues; abortion (Kennedy never had to address), affirmative action (Kennedy never had to address), and homosexuality (Kennedy never had to address). Why? Because the last thing that went though his mind, when these issues were developing, was a bullet! The man was dead before these issues were at the forefront.

I close with a very interesting comparison; one between JFK and GWB

http://www.probe.org/docs/jfk.html

 

[rtwngAvngr]

Reagan didn't "lost the economy", that's ridiculous crap.