OT: The Good Fight by Peter Beinart

[Merryprankster]

Anybody read this yet?

Great book. Hopefully it will be the blueprint for some lucky person in the 2008 presidential election.

[yenhoi]

hah and lol

;)

[rogue]

It's supposed to come in sometime soon at my public library. While I disagree with his idea that liberals have a "willingness to accept that America is capable of evil", and conservatives don't, I'm interested in his ideas. I also think that like Andrew Sullivan, Joe Lieberman and Christopher Hitchens he'll be called names, laughed at and shuned by the liberals and left leaning Democrats.

[Merryprankster]

On the contrary Rogue, I think that is one of the defining assumptions behind the conservative and neo-con approaches to U.S. foreign policy: American Exceptionalism...and it is precisely that exceptionalism - that since our motives are pure, our actions are pure/acceptable by extension - with which the rest of the world has a problem.

When we rendition people to other countries or run prison camps where we loosely interpret torture, its ok. When other places do it, it's a human rights violation. :eek:

While I'd heard/concluded most his book on my own, I was rather taken with the concept that we are strongest when we place limits on our power through international institutions and treaties. Great point. I had always thought of it more along the lines of shared responsibility & accountability and international law. He makes a much broader argument that it serves at least the triple role of curbing our own potential excesses while keeping us in-line with international consensus, and currying favor with an international public that directly impacts our ability to build international coalitions...which is a direct element of our power.

Put more succinctly, French and German citizens have no impact on our domestic political cycle. Through international treaties and organizations, we allow them an indirect say in when and how we use our power. This renders the United States less threatening, and encourages them to cooperate with us on mutual interests.

I noticed his domestic policy sections were weak, but then, this was really a foreign policy book.

FWIW, he takes equal swipes at the Michael Moores of this world, as he should. I have always thought that the problem of the United States is that we've been casting about since the end of the Cold War to find something to define ourselves in opposition to, rather than defining quite clearly what we are FOR. We had quite the contrast in the USSR, and by default, placing yourself against the USSR and what it stood for largely defined what you believed in.

That world is gone, despite stupid people's attempts to cast China in that role. Similarly, Michael Moore and other fools on the far left fail to offer a vision - just opposition to the right. That, and they fail to recognize that moral purity alone is not enough to win the day. Occasionally, you must fight with violence - which will cost us some of our moral purity, no matter what pains we take to protect non-combatants. So yeah, the further left is going to fuss. Oh darn.

It's a pretty good treatise. If you handed it to somebody with significant domestic policy experience, you could build a pretty good overarching platform with it...even without that, you could make a strong foreign policy plank with it.

[rogue]

When we rendition people to other countries or run prison camps where we loosely interpret torture, its ok. When other places do it, it's a human rights violation.

Not all of us conservatives think that way, but I will admit that I am one of those that will swallow some bile in certain circumstances. I may not like it but sometimes that's the way it goes. The problem I have with modern liberal thought is the idea that America is bad but everyplace else is OK. Kind of the flip side of your quote above.

I'm always interested in a good honest critique of conservative thought from the liberal side, so I'm looking forward to the book getting in.

One of the situations that I find interesting is the lurch to the left by the Democratic party. Could be an interesting year for both parties.

[Merryprankster]

The problem I have with modern liberal thought is the idea that America is bad but everyplace else is OK.

That's EXACTLY the sort of liberal that Beinart castigates in his book.

That's the sort of liberal I hate too...

Oh, I just picked up the Politics of Dispossession by Edward Said, and his blurb on Thomas Friedman is funny. I like Friedman myself, although I think he is often quite full of himself, and a little too fond of his own prose.

But the funny part is that Said says "it's as if...what scholars, poets, historians, fighters and statesmen have done is not as important or as central as what Friedman himself thinks."

I got a good grin out of that because it sounds like what Friedman really did was hit a nerve: Friedman didn't consult Academia about what to think, so we can breezily dismiss his thoughts and observations.

I've often found academics to be like that - my mother included!

[rogue]

So you're the son of an academic, my world view is colored by being the son of a NYC beat cop. :D

I've only read Friedman's columns (I'm including Longitudes and Attitudes) and for the life of me can't remember what he wrote. I still have my copy of L&A so it'll be interesting to read again and check against what's going on today.


That's the sort of liberal I hate too...

Now if someone can just define liberalism...

I think we're looking at the hi-jacking of a party ( and a way of thought ) that's going to be worse than when the religious right grabbed a hunk of the Republican party.

[yenhoi]

Merry,

I doubt this one book is going to all of a sudden smarten up the left-decision-makers. and strategers. I dont see many signs of them trying anything much different from the last several elections.

Not that I am just throwing out the Clinton-clan and their magic, with all due respect. ;)

[Merryprankster]

I think Clinton had the makings of a great president, but pretty much ruined it with the Lewinsky thing.

I also think he was too much of the Michael Moore left, although not nearly to the same degree. There was too much hesitancy to use U.S. power. Rwanda comes immediately to mind.

I attribute this to him being a brilliant tactician, but a mediocre strategist. When you get down to it, he never really sold us a vision - it was really sheer personal charisma.

By contrast, Bush has a vision...and it's not a terribly good one...and he lacks the tactical dexterity to realize it.

I too am concerned by the incipient hijacking of the Democratic party....Lieberman's defeat is an indicator. I am hoping that the Dems lose the 2006 mid-term election so that the republicans can continue their downward slide. They'll be set up well for 2008, and maybe - just maybe, there will be some change. But it will take very strong leadership for them to CHANGE things, vice execute legislative and procedural revenge.

[Water Dragon]

ya know, I don't have anything to add to this subject, but I found a great SinclairLewis quote 've been itching to post, and since the Dubya's name did enter this thread, I'm gonna post it:

When fascism comes to America it will be wrapped in the flag, carrying a cross. -- Sinclair Lewis

Yeah, I know it doesn't really have anything to do with this thread, but I wanted to spit the quote, d@mmit!

[rogue]

I'll agree that my team since it's not moving forward with any good big picture ideas is sliding, but I'm not sure when the Dems will find their way and what way it will be. So far their (the far left) hatred of Bush is carrying them along but that will be gone in a few years leaving a very big hole in their world and not much to govern on. Some of the casual rhetoric being spouted by the left (I can't call them liberals) that are trying to gain control of the Dems is disturbing and borderson hate speech and anti-Semitism.

And my team. The Republicans right now are a bunch of empty suits that have me wishing for the return of Newt.

[David Jamieson]

Too much painting of ideas onto what are actually people.

who are "they"?

How does being Liberal equate to being self loathing and far left?

This is illusion and sensationalist.
Political affiliations mean nothing when it comes down to brass tacks.

You think every soldier in Iraq is Republican? Democrat? No, they are soldiers and they are doing their job.

When people paint ideologies onto people, that's where a real danger lies in my opinion.

When 9/11 happened, there weren't people shouting Libs! Fascists! etc etc.
People were simply appalled that such a thing had taken place. No one supported that but the perpatrators.

Much of this talk of dicvision is illusion and rabble rousing and lazy mastubatory ruminations of people who are fired up that they can't do nothing about the state of things.

In reality, we all go to work and do our job, pay our mortgages, play with our kids, have a nice family meal or whatever. We all fundamentally just want to live peaceful lives whether your politic inclinations are within the boundaries of the two party system or not.

As for american foreign policy, if it's not clear that this needs work, I don't know what to say.

It's very simple to point out that money is finite, and the more it is concentrated into one area, the less there will be in the rest of the areas. This causes dissent and unrest, not some ideology be it fascism or communism or take your pick.

Anyway, in order for something to get legs, it has to get buy in.

just wanted to throw an opinion in. Flame on if you feel the need. :p

[rogue]

Dave, right now there is a battle for the Democratic party. What used to be known as the Big Tent is now becoming intolerent to all but a few ideas approved by a group of financiers. You can be a liberal and be as pro-American as any right-wing Republican, hell you can even be both a liberal and a Republican. The people that I'm talking about are different. They believe that America is bad, so bad it's hard to even count the ways it's bad. To me the classic American liberal is someone who believes in individual freedom and the responsibility that comes with it, not somekind of neuvo thought police.

[yenhoi]

Merry, do you really think losing another election is going to help the Dems in 08? I think it will only help the Clintons help them defeat themselves, again, in 08. Another cakewalk for any viable righter. As long as the left keeps acting like a minority party instead of a opposition party the republicans still wont even have to run their A game in 08.

I am not yet convinced that the old guard is sliding, we will see after they win this election if they have just been sand bagging or actually old timering it.

:cool:

[yenhoi]

Jimmy Carter's son, jack Carter is running for congress 'round here as a lib.

Hes got my vote!

:D

[Nick Forrer]

LMAO at Clinton being a liberal...or left wing

Excuse me while I go and execute a mentally retarded black man for cynical electoral reasons....while im at it I might as well bomb a third world country's only source of malarial treatment too to take media attention away from my sexual exploits....now where did I leave that slush fund....

[Radhnoti]

DJ - "It's very simple to point out that money is finite, and the more it is concentrated into one area, the less there will be in the rest of the areas. This causes dissent and unrest, not some ideology be it fascism or communism or take your pick."

I had an economics professor that would rail about statements like that. His contention was that (if you had to picture wealth as a pie) the pie is infinite. You can't take all the wealth, resources AND ideas from a place. People who made statements like this (in his opinion) were ACTUALLY working from the paradigm of class envy. "If I don't have it, NO ONE should!"

I'd love to read Mr. Beinart's book. Also, I'd love to see a viable 3rd party in the U.S....or for either of the major partys to pick up on some ignored issues. Illegal immigration, all but broken tax system (I love The Fair Tax HR 25 and S 25), and social security's inveviable demise (in it's current incarnation) to name a few.

[David Jamieson]

rad- the pie is not infinite by any stretch of the imagination.
To say so is to say that resources and wealth are infinite. They are not, they are finite.

Point of fact is that if wealth were infinite, then no one would be impoverished.
All roads lead to rome? :p

[TonyM.]

That could be the most stupid concept I've ever heard of.

[Radhnoti]

DJ - "rad- the pie is not infinite by any stretch of the imagination.
To say so is to say that resources and wealth are infinite. They are not, they are finite.
Point of fact is that if wealth were infinite, then no one would be impoverished."

I'm no economist, but I'll try to convey his ideas and I'll give up if I'm cornered by someone with something I don't understand. :D
Currency is really just a physical representation of energy spent working. If EVERYONE had an open market and non-interfering government, currency would simply represent the amount citizens were able to intelligently work. The more work the citizens output, the more dollars the government prints. The society isn't LOSING dollars, dollars are printed and distributed as society gains services/work output that benefits said society.
Simplified example, everyone is a farmer. Let's say every farmer gets $1000 per acreage of corn farmed. Some work extra hours and farm more acres, gaining more currency. If these farmers turn their corn over to the government for currency does the government lose money by the overachievers' greater yield or does it lessen the amount granted the other farmers? No. The government has the physical yield of their labor...and if everyone of those farmers worked to yield more corn the government STILL wouldn't lose money...they'd just print more and not worry about inflation (overprinting money) because they're still getting the valued commodity via work output.
It gets a lot more complicated in the real world, of course. Markets get saturated, but others open up. In the real world investing work into learning a trade or excelling in school leads to greater earning capacity, and some governments don't allow upward mobility based on effort. Governmental interference can ruin everything short-term...until the government collapses from it's own corruption. But, long term, the concept is solid, if citizens expend the energy that leads to the production of a commodity the money production could always keep pace. This is not even touching on the monetary worth of ideas/inventions...which can add even more commodities to a society for which the idea-person could be paid. It's ridiculous to blame another country for the situation within your own nation. Their success does not guarantee your failure. The pie is potentially infinite.

[Merryprankster]

Merry, do you really think losing another election is going to help the Dems in 08?

Absolutely. I see no light at the end of the tunnel for the Republicans by 08. Losing another election allows the Republican party to continue presiding over this fiasco with a legislative majority as well as the white house.

That sets the Dems up nicely for 08.

[rogue]

Of course that's assuming that the Dems don't implode.
Merry, I do have to ask, which is your favorite baseball team, the Red Sox or the Cubbies?:D

[Merryprankster]

Rogue -

Very true. There is no guarentee that the Democrats WON'T implode - and also no guarentee that the Republicans won't suddenly be "vindicated," by historical forces beyond their control (see Reagan and how he "Won the Cold War" :rolleyes: )


Nick...


while im at it I might as well bomb a third world country's only source of malarial treatment too to take media attention away from my sexual exploits....

Now who is being cynical? :D I mean that in the nicest way I promise. I think I would be naive to think that the TIMING of that strike wasn't opportunistic, but I think you'll find that most of the people involved in that decision (including the civil service, non-appointed beaurocrats & analysts) either still continue to believe it was a chemical weapons facility, or that they made a horrible mistake. Both point to sincere intentions.

Secondly, not using force doesn't define liberal. So a missile strike hardly points to Clinton not being a liberal.

Third, I am troubled by the idea that this was the only source of anti-malarial treatment in Sudan. This is patently untrue. Anti-malarial drugs of the time were quinine based, with chloroquine being the most common. Chloroquine was and is widely available in Africa from a variety of sources, with complete treatment courses that literally cost pennies. I find it highly, (bordering on no way) that that strike endangered the lives of any Sudanese people, or anybody else, except for the folks at the factory. It certainly did not put anything even resembling a dent in the chloroquine supply.

Chloroquine was and is SO ubiquitous that its cheapness and availability is highlighted as a major cause of chloroquine resistant malaria. Why? Because at the first hint of fever, many Africans would and still do go and purchase a short course of chloroquine as a prophylactic measure. It might be something else entirely, but they take the drugs anyway. Naturally, this led to resistance on the part of the malaria protozoan - especially if the short course doesn't kill all the malaria parasites, which it often doesn't. Hopefully, they can pull the cost of Artemisinin down....or even better, hopefully the international community will develop a conscience on this issue, buy it at cost (still cheap at around a buck and change per dose), and help distribute it appropriately as part of a multi-drug therapy. This is one disease where "profit," should be the absolutely last consideration. Save that for "restless leg syndrome" and obesity.:eek: Malaria's toll on African development is enormous.

To get back round to the point though - "the only source of malarial treatment," is an ogre raised to highlight, IMO, how bad the United States/Clinton is, by implying that a bunch of death, or at the very least, sickness, followed as a result. Given the sheer availability and cheapness of chloroquine, I find this highly improbable. It is precisely this sort of argument that the "Michael Moore" left seems to be drawn to, built around the base assumption that any time the United States exercises its power, regardless of the arena, it is inherently evil or at the very least misguided to the point of criminally negligent. I use that generalization loosely. The irony is, of course, that it is simply the moral clarity of conservatives, in reverse...

I have poked around and have been unable to locate a spike in Sudanese malarial cases/deaths, which would at least suggest my argument might be wrong (although floods, weather etc could also cause a spike).

A better question these days would be "what is a liberal?" Nobody's got an answer I think, except for the Michael Moore left, and that answer, is almost always defined by what they are against, as opposed to what they are for. I cannot tell from listening to the Michael Moore left what they would fight FOR, only what they know they don't like.

Not much of a plank...

[Nick Forrer]

James,

certainly the phrase 'only source of malarial treatment' is stated too strongly in my original post (largely for purposes of hyperbole on my part I must confess) if given its strictest possible interpretation... after all, it would only take one pharmacy anywhere in sudan with a publically available supply of anti malarial drugs to refute it .......

Perhaps a more precise way to have put it would have been to say 'only cheap mass producer of anti malarial drugs within Sudan itself'. That said, it is certainly the case that *availabilty* of drugs is one thing but *affordability* is quite another with the general sudanese population being amongst the poorest in Africa and therefore the world...

Yes its a non sequiter to say that if X supports military intervention X is not a liberal. It wasnt intended as a syllogism. However I lose track of what liberal means exactly especially within American political discourse where it seems an appellation lazily applied to anyone who disagrees with ones viewpoint. If 'liberalism' is equivalent to the credo 'maximum freedom of the individual compatible with maximum freedom of fellow citizens' then certainly I would endorse that. Then again what does that platitude mean when you 'cash' it in? Does my freedom to watch pornography interfere with a womans freedom to not be degraded. Does my freedom to abort my child interfere with the childs right to live? Does my freedom to protect my property allow me to own a handgun.....
All of which is question begging of course.

The point though is that I dont see it (liberalism) as a particuarly cogent or useful political category unless one compiles a definitive list of all the particular freedoms liberals are for (which surely would be impossible in view of the nature of the original platitude). More specifically the point I was trying to make (perhaps badly in retrospect) is that any comparison between Bush characterised as a mercenary warmonger and Clinton as peace loving pro un peacenik is a lazily constructed dichotomy that doesnt fit with the real facts of the Clinton administrations time in office. I would urge anyone interested to read Hitchens book on the Clintons (with one chapter entitled 'is there a rapist in the oval ofice?')

Finally, I dont know what the the micheal moore left is....perhaps its a synonym for communist? (another lazy appellation).....certainly the current US administration has a lot of otherwise politically diverse groups united in their contempt for it and its policies and US foreign credibility must surely be at an all time low (which given its previous track record viz. Cuba, Haiti, Japan, Nicragua, Chile, Columbia, Israel, Iraq, Iran, Indonesia etc. really is saying something...)

[Nick Forrer]

Addendum. James... My bad. I said Malaria (faulty memory)...it appears I mean Meningitus...its been a few years since I read about this issue.

Here is an excerpt from this article

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/354470.stm

Hitchens cites the US missile strike against the El Shifa chemical factory in Sudan in August 1998.

The bombing coincided with Monica Lewinsky's second grand jury appearance
The attack, supported by Mr Blair, was claimed as a reprisal for the bombings of two US embassies in Africa.

Hitchens says that its real purpose was to provide an instant boost to the president's image on the day that Ms Lewinsky made her second grand jury appearance.

The evidence produced to back White House claims that the plant was linked to the bombings suspect, Islamic dissident Osama bin Laden, and that it produced chemical weapons not medicines has all been discredited, he says.

So much so that the US has unfrozen the assets of the factory's owner who is suing for compensation in the American courts.

Hitchens says that the four services heads of the Joint Chiefs of Staff were reportedly kept in the dark about the attack.

The CIA has also let it be known that it opposed the air strike, he adds.

Mr Clinton told five layers of lies to cover up his war crimes
The rockets were launched without warning against a country with which the US had diplomatic relations and which had previously expelled Mr bin Laden at Washington's request.

The FBI was also reportedly furious that Mr Clinton ordered the missiles in before it could warn its agents in Africa.

"Take away all the exploded claims about Sudan and the question 'What was the hurry?' practically answers itself," says Hitchens.

Hitchens says that the deadly consequences of what he sees as a presidential PR stunt will be suffered for a long while yet.

Hitchens says the bombing destroyed Sudan's ability to fight a meningitis outbreak
The bombing flattened a factory which he says produced 60% of the medical supplies for a country ravaged by civil war and famine.

This means Sudan has been unable to effectively combat what he Red Cross has described as a "furious meningitis epidemic" which has claimed the lives of at least 2,000 children and young people, he says.

"So not only were there people killed needlessly in the bombing itself but people also have been and are dying down the road and all of them to save President Clinton's face," he says.

[Merryprankster]

That's interesting. I hadn't seen that. I had seen malaria before, so I assumed we'd been reading the same things. I also find it a bit odd, IMO, that the factory apparently manufactured baby formula, anti-malarial meds and now meningitis meds...

That's a hell of a factory!!!

However, I also find that report a bit suspect. Meningitis responds well to a variety of medications readily available.

I'd bet money that what really caused the "furious outbreak" of meningitis and the subsequent inability to treat it is probably a direct result of bad infrastructure, and that factory's existance wouldn't have mattered a bit.

But that's just my opinion.

FYI, I would be genuinely shocked if the JCS was kept out of the loop as Hitchen's claims. I would like to see his sources. It would have been impossible to keep that a secret from the COCOMS (combatant commanders), since it was their asset that fired the missile, and that would necessitate prior notification of the JCS and the COCOM! (The President doesn't just order an asset to fire directly. I suppose it COULD happen, but I'm betting there are legal barriers - and yes, I do believe an asset commanding officer would make a stink about that. The Chain of Command is a hugely important concept in the U.S. military, and if it came out that Clinton circumvented it, I'm betting it would have come out in a far more vociferous fashion - JCS's and COCOMs probably would have resigned in protest or some such.)

Just my opinion.

Nick - roger on the liberal label. I forgot you wuz a fur'ner...

In the United States liberal refers to people who tend to want to use government power to combat social issues. National healthcare, welfare, workers rights etc. They have a general tendency to favor highly progressive taxation systems. They would oppose the death penalty, usually, favor gay marriage, and a system of laws/regulation to lend a "hand up" to traditionally underpriveleged demographics. They tend to favor international cooperation. They are leftist, certainly, in the international sense of the word and borrow from, or identify with "socialist," as it is used in Europe and most of the rest of the world. They are not actually Communists, in the Leninist, Stalinist or Maoist sense, for the most part. They are often called "left-wing." Most Democrats in the U.S. would identify with many/all liberal issues. Defense spending is a favorite target for most liberals.

In the United States, Lyndon Johnson and Franklin Roosevelt would likely be considered "liberal" presidents by most people.

"Conservative," in the United States generally means some combination of "morally conservative" and "fiscally conservative," here. The morally conservative are concerned with what they perceive as an assault on American values and culture. Border security, immigration controls, school prayer and curbs on welfare (it disincentivizes working), abortion, birth control for minors, keeping the death penalty, high penalties for crimes (especially drugs) and sex education would figure prominently in the moral conservative plank. Fiscal conservatives are generally concerned with reducing government spending, usually by cutting a variety of government programs completely or partially. Defense usually seems oddly immune from both moral and fiscal conservatives... :D Most Republicans would strongly identify some combination of the above two general lines of thought.

There is usually a strong suspicion of government intervention in domestic affairs on the part of moral and fiscal conservatives. Both generally favor devolving many regulatory and maintanence functions to the states and local governments. Foreign policy desires range from borderline isolationist to activist.

Neo-conservatives aren't particularly conservative, but the label stuck. They are primarily defined through their foreign policy, vice domestic policy suggestions, which usually fall somewhere along the moral conservative line. In line with this, they tend to believe strongly in the innate goodness of America and therefore favor highly interventionist foreign policy to spread democratic ideals and liberalism, unilaterally if necessary.

Your mileage may vary with all of these terms. Most black voters in the U.S. would identify with most of the liberal platforms, but because as a demographic they are highly religious, oppose gay marriage and gay rights, and are a mixed bag with respect to abortion.

Similarly many fiscal conservatives are furious with the current administration - George Will - a prominent conservative thinker in the United States - is a prime example. Obviously, the moral conservatives and fiscal conservatives are often in constant tension in the Republican party.

The "Michael Moore" left is made-up term designed to connote the "anti-American" left in this country who basically pretty much oppose any U.S. action anywhere based on the assumption that the United States is what is wrong with the world today. When we didn't go into Rwanda and Haiti, we were racist and imperialist and evil. When we went into Bosnia, we were evil and racist and imperialist. When we invaded Afghanistan (even with international blessing and participation) we were imperialist and evil and racist.

You get the idea.

I left out Iraq because that conflict did and still does cut across party lines....

The Michael Moore left is very clear about what it doesn't like - the United States - and seems unable to define what it is for.

Hopefully, that's a useful crash course in American politics...so, while the Economist is considered a "liberal" magazine in Europe, it's not a "liberal" magazine in the U.S.

[rogue]

Reagan and how he "Won the Cold War"

Very true, we all know it was Cousin Jimmy Carter!:D


certainly the current US administration has a lot of otherwise politically diverse groups united in their contempt for it and its policies and US foreign credibility must surely be at an all time low (which given its previous track record viz. Cuba, Haiti, Japan, Nicragua, Chile, Columbia, Israel, Iraq, Iran, Indonesia etc. really is saying something...)

It's OK to have others hold you in contempt, especially if those others just stand around twiddling their thumbs, are for appeasment or worse are in bed the trouble makers. I have to ask you Nick, what makes a foreign policy credible and to whom?

[Nick Forrer]

I have to ask you Nick, what makes a foreign policy credible and to whom?


Well two pillars of any credible foreign policy must surely be honesty (about what your doing and why) and consistency (between policies a and b and alsobetween the same policy)

To take the invasion and occupation of Iraq as just one example:


Don’t tell the world its to rid Iraq of dangerous WMDS when a) they don’t have any b) you know they don’t have any and c) your client state (Israel) is the only one in the region to have a functioning WMD program that includes nuclear weapons (which was secret until their scientist (vanunnu) leaked it and whom they then imprisoned)

don’t say its because of a link to 9 11 when there is no credible evidence whatsoever of a link between the Baathist regime and attacks on the US (especially when everyone knows saddam ran a secular regime that militants like OBL originally wanted US help to depose)

don’t say its to stabilise the middle east when your client state (Israel) is the biggest threat to peace in the region

don’t say its to protect kurds when you still sell arms and support a state which is the worst violater of Kurdish human rights (turkey) and whom you have never publicly chastised for such abuses or cut aid from

don’t say it to maintain the credibility of the UN when your client state (Israel) is still in violation of outstanding UN resolutions and when you yourself are prepared to invade a soverign state that has never commited any act of aggression towards you on a false pretext killing thousands of civilians in the process without a UN resolution

don’t spend ages trying to bribe and intimidate rotating members of the UN security council into supporting a resolution (even going so far as to secretly bug ambassadors phones) and then when you don’t get your way say you don’t need one anyway as you had legal authorisation all along

don’t say its to bring a war criminal to justice when the men who supported Saddam during his worst atrocities in the 80s are members of your own administration and whom you have no intention of prosecuting

don’t say its not for profit or oil when your vice precedent is a director and shareholder of a company directly involved in the reconstruction of Iraqs infrastructure (which your planes destroyed and which Iraqi oil wealth must now pay you for the privilege of rebuilding)

dont say its to support democracy when you support brutal dictatorships like Saudi Arabia and Pakistan and when you try and subvert other democracies like the Chavez government in Venezuela and when you harbour men who were involved in illegal coup d’etats (Pedro Carmona)

I could go on but you get the picture…or rather not as nothing I say will make any dent in your entrenched ideological dogma I'm sure.

[Nick Forrer]

In the United States liberal refers to people who tend to want to use government power to combat social issues. National healthcare, welfare, workers rights etc. They have a general tendency to favor highly progressive taxation systems. They would oppose the death penalty, usually, favor gay marriage, and a system of laws/regulation to lend a "hand up" to traditionally underpriveleged demographics.
.

Ok so by your (useful definition cheers) Clinton is not a liberal since:


He slashed welfare benefits for the poorest
He supported economic liberalisation (Nafta)
He executed a mentally retarded black man


Correct?

[Radhnoti]

Sorry to chime in when I'm sure MP or rogue will have a better answer than me...but just to give my opinion.
Clinton slashed welfare because the (mostly Conservative) House kept hammering away at him until he was forced into it. He vetoed it more than twice... It was politically popular to pass it at the time as well...and election time.
Nafta would fall under the, "They tend to favor international cooperation.", section MP outlined as a liberal characteristic.
And when you say "executed a mentally retarded black man", do you mean he didn't grant a stay of execution? Would be pretty politically unpopular for any President to grant a criminal, with victims, another chance. Especially after winding all the way through our often ridiculously lenient criminal court system. The kind of thing your political opponents are going to use against you...and you HAVE to give Clinton the fact that he was/is good at being a politician.

Lots of "perspective" in your Iraq rundown as well.
A few points that keeps getting overlooked in the Haliburton issue....
While Mr. Chaney worked there for a couple of years, Haliburton has AWAYS been owned by the Johnson family as majority share holders.... that is JOHNSON as in President Lyndon Baynes Johnson (democrat). His wife, Lady Bird, was the major share holder of Hailburton before Mr. Chaney got there, while Mr. Chaney was there, and after Mr. Chaney left. Haliburton was a favorite DoD contractor for the Clintons. Any non-compete contracts might be linked back to powerful democrats, as they had much more to gain.
There was a UN resolution, just not as many "empty" ones many countries (suspiciously, many benefiting financially from the UN "oil for food" scandals) wanted. Also, the many sources saying there WAS a WMD program are pretty well documented. It's easy now to use hindsight and say, "You should have listened to THIS source and not THAT source." Lots of chemical weapons (which were used against Iraqis) WERE found and much more was never accounted for.

*Hugo Chavez...the guy who attempted a coup d'état with the military before he won democratically? He changed the Constitution to extend his rule. During a recall attempt European Union observers did not oversee the elections, saying too many restrictions were put on their participation by the Chávez administration. A Penn, Schoen & Berland Associates (PSB) exit poll predicted that Chávez would lose by 20%, but the election results showed him to have won by 20%. Schoen commented, "I think it was a massive fraud". According to the Center for Security Policy, "the (Hugo Chávez) regime delayed and obstructed the recall referendum process at every turn. Once the regime was forced to submit to such a referendum, moreover, it used a fraud-filled voting process to ensure victory. The government did everything—including granting citizenship to half a million illegal aliens in a crude vote-buying scheme and “migrating” existing voters away from their local election office—to fix the results in its favor. Chavez recently proposed a constitutionally binding referendum to allow for a third term. Chávez has said that if the opposition boycotts the 2006 Venezuelan presidential election, he might hold a referendum to abolish the presidential term limit of 12 years and allow him to run for re-election "indefinitely". According to an article in The Washington Post a program called "Mission Identity", to fast track voter registration of immigrants to Venezuela — including Chávez supporters benefiting from his subsidies — has been put in place prior to the upcoming 2006 presidential elections.
*Got most this from Wikipedia...but lots more online if you google Chavez. He's making all the moves toward dictatorship in Venezuala.

[rogue]

Well two pillars of any credible foreign policy must surely be honesty (about what your doing and why) and consistency (between policies a and b and alsobetween the same policy)

I think that's a nice ideal but I disagree with it and prefer this definition.

A foreign policy is a set of political goals that seeks to outline how a particular country will interact with the other countries of the world. Foreign policies generally are designed to help protect a country's national interests, national security, ideological goals, and economic prosperity. This can occur as a result of peaceful cooperation with other nations, or through aggression, war, and exploitation. The twentieth century saw a rapid rise in the importance of foreign policy, with virtually every nation in the world now being able to interact with one another in some diplomatic form. Wikipedia

I've bolded what I think makes for a credible foreign policy.


don’t say its to stabilise the middle east when your client state (Israel) is the biggest threat to peace in the region
I actually think that the US and Isreal are the only things keeping a full out war from happening in the area. Kuwait was invaded by Iraq and Iran has it's eyes on Saudi Arabia. Do you really think that if Isreal didn't exist that the Middle East would be one big happy family?

recent news (http://www.dailystar.com.lb/article.asp?edition_id=10&categ_id=5&article_id=75114)


To take the invasion and occupation of Iraq as just one example:
Do you think the world would have gotten behind the U.S. taking out Sadaam because of the assasination attempt on George H. Bush? Or invaded because of Sadaam's financial support of terrorists? Or that we needed a place to set up camp on Iran's doorstep?


don’t say its to bring a war criminal to justice when the men who supported Saddam during his worst atrocities in the 80s are members of your own administration and whom you have no intention of prosecuting
Yup, we sometimes lie down with the Devil, (as did France, Britain and the Russians). We essentially had a hand in creating AQ and the Taliban by our support of the Muj in Afghanistan back in the 80's, and why Noriega was permitted to take over Pananama. Sometimes you support someone you'd otherwise shoot to support your country's national interests. It's not pleasant but it's the way the world works.


I could go on but you get the picture…or rather not as nothing I say will make any dent in your entrenched ideological dogma I'm sure.
Sorry but I wish I still had idealogical dogma to fall back on. I've learned enough to realize that the world is a messy place where things are not always what they seem, that people in power do the ****edest things for the strangest reasons. I've also learned that things tend to be interconnected to things that you would never think of.



Radhnoti, thanks for picking up the ball.

[Merryprankster]

Nick,

Clinton supported a variety of liberal programs, including a woman's right to choose to have an abortion. You also would not have found him pushing creationism as science. He also pushed for national health insurance of some sort at least, and as Radhnoti pointed out, pushed international cooperation, as well as environmental standards. Gay rights, while not a big part of his agenda, are something he also takes what would be considered a liberal stance on.

He pushed for welfare reform because he was also fairly fiscally conservative - the two have not frequently gone hand in hand in the United States.

Regarding NAFTA, don't confuse U.S. liberalism with protectionism. I have my own beefs (beeves, LOL) with NAFTA, but mostly because I think they haven't gone far enough. Supporting labor is different from trying to protect certain industries. The fact of the matter is that manufacturing, with the exception of certain niche markets in the U.S., is going the way of the dodo. That was a big plank of Clinton's platform actually, and something that set him apart from conservatives: He favored NAFTA, and wanted to try and convince the unions that they would be better off embracing the change than trying to fight a losing battle against the tide of the global economy - and he had a plank designed to sponsor skills training and education for those who needed it to find themselves a place - by way of example, robots are a big part of a production line now - and while you might not have an assembly line job any more, somebody has to repair and maintain the robots.

Like anybody else, Clinton is a mixed bag. In general, he supported policies that would be considered liberal. NAFTA, welfare reform and the death penalty do not a conservative make. It's not an all or nothing proposition. LBJ ramped up the war in Vietnam - does that make him not a liberal? I think his domestic policy record (and the degree to which he is excoriated by conservatives) speaks for itself on where we decide to pigeonhole him.

However, if you want to say Clinton is a MODERATE liberal, then I could certainly agree with that - because he's certainly not NOT a liberal :).

Re: Chavez - his democracy is a joke, and he continues to move to consolidate power and reduce media freedom, while intimidating voters. Evidence of these tactics have "concerned," in the international diplomacy parlance, EU and OAS observers, and voter participation continues to decline, never mind his use of Venezuelan government funds and offices to provide advice to prefered candidates in foreign country elections. Thread about it below.

http://ezine.kungfumagazine.com/forum/showthread.php?t=42751

Regarding supposed CIA support/U.S. government involvement in the Venezuelan coup attempt, the OAS investigated and concluded that there was no evidence of any such assistance, support or, help, direct or tacit.

Whatever else anybody would like to say, Chavez is not demonstrating that he's a committed democrat - and, in fact, quite the opposite.

Please don't anybody go making ridiculous comparisons between Chavez's tactics and Bush's. For all his faults, Bush and his team are committed to the idea of democracy (at least in the United States), and will not be working to try and get him elected to a 3rd term. He will leave at the end of his constitutionally appointed limit. Nor does Bush commandeer media time, work nationwide to undermine the secret ballot, or stifle opposition media.

[rogue]

Maybe Chavez is hoping for a Andrew Lloyd Weber show along the lines of Evita.


BTW: Mike Malloy was fired from Air America. How bad does someone have to be to get fired from that bunch?:D