Reason Magazine
- reason.com
- reason.tv
- reason.org
- Donate
- Site Search:
Reason on Facebook
Reason on Twitter
Reason on YouTube
Reason RSSGet Reason E-mail Updates!
Manage your Reason e-mail list subscriptionsadvertisements
President of What?
Most of
the criticism of Barack Obama's Berlin speech came before the
speech had even been delivered, and focused on trivia (he printed
fliers in German!) and traditions that were invented last week or
so (presidential candidates don't give speeches in other
countries!). But the speech
has been given now, and the text is more interesting than the
atmospherics. Specifically:
Will we lift the child in Bangladesh from poverty, shelter the refugee in Chad, and banish the scourge of AIDS in our time?
Will we stand for the human rights of the dissident in Burma, the blogger in Iran, or the voter in Zimbabwe? Will we give meaning to the words “never again” in Darfur?
That's not pablum. I count at least four extensions of American foreign policy here: increased foreign aid, increased funding for PEPFAR, sanctions, and maybe a little bit of ol' fashioned humanitarian intervention. (That's what he's occasionally suggested for Darfur, at least.) It's proof, if any more was needed, that Obama is not wary of foreign engagements. He's a progressive realist who thinks America hasn't done enough to police the world and to stave off future threats by doing whatever NGOs say we should be doing.
Most of our foreign policy debate has focused on Iraq, in part because that's where John McCain wants it to focus, in part because that's where our forces are at the moment. I definitely agree with Andrew Bacevich that an Obama victory discredits the Iraq project, while a McCain victory validates it. But McCain and Obama want the same thing, for Americans to be proud of their country again vis-a-vis its engagement in foreign conflicts. Put another way: I don't think an Obama victory discredits neoconservatism. He's offering neoconservatism with a human face.
Headline explained here.
UPDATE: Jim Geraghty has a quiz: Obama speech lines versus "We Are the World" lyrics.
UPDATE II: Oh, I love hacks. From Obama's opening lines:
Tonight, I speak to you not as a candidate for President, but as a citizen – a proud citizen of the United States, and a fellow citizen of the world.
From Team John "Wow, it was a good idea to dare Obama to take this trip" McCain:
While Barack Obama took a premature victory lap today in the heart of Berlin, proclaiming himself a 'citizen of the world,' John McCain continued to make his case to the American citizens who will decide this election.
He declared himself a citizen of the U.S. and the world, smart guys. Is John McCain not a citizen of the world? When his map reaches the Atlantic Ocean, does it turn white and read "Here There Be Dragons"?
It strikes me as more fighting-the-last-war from McCain. John Kerry was vulnerable to attacks of America-hatin' globalism when he did things like say American policy decisions had to pass a "global test." Obama was putting American supremacy in the kind of gooey nougat shell that Europeans like.
Taktix®|7.24.08 @ 3:05PM|#
...traditions that were invented last week or so
(presidential candidates don't give speeches in other
countries!)
Like Reagan's Tear-Down-This-Wall speech?
(yeah,I know. He was already president by then. But throw it out
there, Republicans won't notice the distinction.)
Where's all the more leftward commenters to tell us how much better
Obama will be?
Giant Douche v. Turd Sandwich, cycle after cycle...
Episiarch|7.24.08 @ 3:09PM|#
But guys, Obama's foreign intervention is the right kind of foreign intervention. Remember, it's OK to act like a neocon as long as you don't sound like one.
Federal Dog|7.24.08 @ 3:10PM|#
"That's not pablum."
Yes it is. The guy has never done anything except talk.
No Name Guy|7.24.08 @ 3:17PM|#
I'm sure he'd be elected President of the European Union.
But this really doesn't raise his stock in Michigan or
Virginia.
drawn asunder|7.24.08 @ 3:18PM|#
Can we at least get the term "realist" the scare quotes it
deserves:
"He's a progressive "realist" who thinks America hasn't done enough
to police the world"
That's better.
|7.24.08 @ 3:18PM|#
He's offering neoconservatism with a human face.
No, he's offering foreign policy liberalism, which seems to be a
forgotten strand of thought in contemporary political discourse.
There hasn't really been a high-profile advocate of this philosophy
in decades, so it's not surprising that people wouldn't immediately
recognize it as such.
There are some superficial similarities to neoconservatism, but
quite a few differences as well. It also has some superficial
similiarities to paleoconservative isolationism/noninterventionism.
It has other similarities to pacifism.
Wikipedia has a pretty good page on Foreign Policy Liberalism.
Nigel Watt|7.24.08 @ 3:21PM|#
Wow, joe, here I was thinking you wouldn't show your face here. Look, I don't care where you put it in the political spectrum, foreign intervention is wrong.
Jason|7.24.08 @ 3:22PM|#
He's offering neoconservatism with a human face.
Oh, puh-leez. Compare to McCain, who wants to throw China and
Russia out of the G8, instigating a new Cold War.
Yes, Obama is a realist in foreign policy parlance. Do you really
expect neoconservative intervention in Bangladesh from an Obama
administration?
|7.24.08 @ 3:24PM|#
See, if you don't know what foreign policy liberalism is, you
have to invent novel terminology to describe it. Like "progressive
realist." There is, and never has been, a Realist* strand in
progressive/liberal foreign policy philosophy. As long as those
terms have existed, they were defined in opposition to each other.
Obama is not a Realist* in any sense. He is not a Progressive
Realist*, or any other type of Realist* and the fact that not one
of the four foreign policy positions Weigel calls out relates to
the promotion of American national interest should have been the
tipoff.
*I'm assuming that everyone is aware that there is a school of
foreign policy called Realism, and that ther meaning of this proper
noun is distinct from the dictionary definition of small-r
realism.
Nigel Watt|7.24.08 @ 3:26PM|#
Joe, I'm aware of what foreign policy liberalism is. It's INTERVENTIONISM. NO.
Abdul|7.24.08 @ 3:27PM|#
How do you take 3 rhetorical questions and turn them into
Obama's foreign policy platform?
There's no concrete plan there. "Standing for the human rights of
the dissident in Burma" could just as easily mean sending the
Marines or sending a strongly worded letter to the military
junta.
In fact, you could argue that Bush has done everything that Obama
implied with his rhetorical questions. He's increased foreign aid,
spent more on AIDS in Africa than all other presidential
administrations combined, and paid lip service to human rights in
Zimbabwe, Darfur, and Iran.
dewces|7.24.08 @ 3:27PM|#
I don't you should make a speech that says here are problems in the world and we are not going to do anything about it. Its just what you say as long you dont spend tax dollars on it. As Jon Stewart says "the new republicans are the just democrats on steriods". I think we need to switch back to decaf before we give up coffee.
|7.24.08 @ 3:27PM|#
NNG,
So hes Woodrow Wilson, joe? Well, no, obviously, he's
Barack Obama.
Wilson was a foreign policy liberal, although I'd argue that he
merely paid lip service to that philosophy in many areas.
Is Ron Paul Charles Lindburgh?
Is Bob Barr Henry Kissinger?
We could do this all day.
|7.24.08 @ 3:27PM|#
"I don't think an Obama victory discredits neoconservatism. He's
offering neoconservatism with a human face."
No he is offering it with a liberal face. I would like to believe
that Obama is going to sell out the country and turn the Nimitz
into a floating shelter for the homeless but even I can't buy that.
Obama will internvene all over the place. I love how the same
people who have bumber stickers that say "Support our troops send
them home" are now buying into the idea of taking them out of Iraq
and sending them to Afghanistan, even though there are no Al Quada
bases in Afghanistan right now and Afghanistan really is starting
to look like what they claim Iraq to be; a sectarian civil war that
we have no way to stop or control.
If Bill Clinton had invaded Iraq in 1998, the liberals would have
hailed him as the great liberator. You have to be a pretty big
sucker to beleive that Democrats are somehow less war like or less
interventionist than Republicans. I say that as an interventionist
who would have supported Clinton invading Iraq.
|7.24.08 @ 3:28PM|#
yeah,I know. He was already president by then. But throw it
out there, Republicans won't notice the distinction.
Actually Rush was playing recordings of Regan's speech to the run
up to Obama's speech....and drawing that very distinction...that
Regan was president and Obama is not.
Not only are Republican's noticing the distinction they are
emphasizing it.
Episiarch|7.24.08 @ 3:28PM|#
But guys, Obama's foreign intervention is the right kind of
foreign intervention. Remember, it's OK to act like a neocon as
long as you don't sound like one.
I'm going to rephrase my earlier statement.
But guys, Obama's foreign intervention is the right kind of foreign
intervention. Remember, it's OK to act like a neocon as
long as you say you have altruistic motivations and aren't acting
in your national interest.
No Name Guy|7.24.08 @ 3:29PM|#
"Is Ron Paul Charles Lindburgh?"
No, hes Senator Taft.
Barr is somewhere between Taft and Eisenhower.
Imperialist|7.24.08 @ 3:30PM|#
Do-Gooders in charge of foreign policy, blech!
If we're going to pressure, intimdate, and/or invade somone, it
should be for purely self-interested greed.
|7.24.08 @ 3:31PM|#
Nigel Watt,
"Interventionism" is a meaningless term, like "Statist," that only
means that the philsophy being describes is not the small corner of
political thought called "Military Isolationism" or
"Non-Interventionism."
Which is true, as far as it goes, but not too terribly helpful in
actually understanding the particular political philosophy in
question.
Neoconservatisms is not Realpolitik is not Liberalism. The only
thing they have in common is that they are not Military
Isolationism.
I can just as easily, and just as accurately, note that Military
Isoalationism, Realism, and Neoconservatism are all not Liberalism,
but what's the point?
Mike M.|7.24.08 @ 3:32PM|#
for Americans to be proud of their country again vis-a-vis
its engagement in foreign conflicts
I never stopped being proud of my country for one second because of
what we're attempting to do in Iraq, and neither have a lot of
other people I know.
Please don't presume to speak for all Americans.
Nigel Watt|7.24.08 @ 3:33PM|#
joe, the point is that the only acceptable viewpoint for a politician to have for people that love liberty is non-interventionism.
|7.24.08 @ 3:34PM|#
I'm sure he'd be elected President of the European
Union.
But this really doesn't raise his stock in Michigan or
Virginia.
I think the point of the speech is to build some foreign policy
cred here at home. "Hey look at me Florida i can get Germans to
praise me when I am asking absolutely nothing from them." Or some
such nonsense.
Note: This is very unlike Regan's or even Kennedy's speech which
was intended to build support for their foreign policy among
foreigners.
Taktix®|7.24.08 @ 3:34PM|#
"Standing for the human rights of the dissident in Burma"
could just as easily mean sending the Marines or sending a strongly
worded letter to the military junta.
So he's either an interventionist or wholly ineffective. That's no
good, either way...
|7.24.08 @ 3:35PM|#
he printed fliers in German! Presidential candidates don't
give speeches in other countries!
Ok, it will be much more efficient if both parties just agree to
Rule Z: "Whatever the other party's candidate or campaign does is a
severe breach of what it means to be an American." That way no one
ever has to bother to write a column--just post "With respect to
[insert particular situation], please refer to Rule Z."
But guys, Obama's foreign intervention is the right kind of
foreign intervention. Remember, it's OK to act like a neocon as
long as you say you have altruistic motivations and aren't acting
in your national interest
Yeah, there's no difference between a relatively minor military
mission to stop genocide and a massively wasteful, elective war
based on lies with the goal of American hegemony in the Middle East
and the securing of oil contracts. Let's just call both actions
"neocon" and stop thinking about which we prefer. Also, let's just
assume that ending the Darfur madness isn't in our national
interest.
DannyK|7.24.08 @ 3:35PM|#
Can anyone explain how Obama's a neocon all of a sudden? Was
there no humanitarian intervention or support for human rights
before the neocons? I know it's a vague term, but "neocon" doesn't
equal "assertive foreign policy I don't like."
Otherwise, Teddy Roosevelt and Woodrow Wilson were neocons before
there were even paleocons, which would totally screw up
the fossil record. Careful with the time machines, guys!
No Name Guy|7.24.08 @ 3:36PM|#
Joshua, he has seemed to fail. Hes either flat or falling in state polls (and not just one, several from several different pollsters, like the Q Pac ones today).
|7.24.08 @ 3:36PM|#
If Bill Clinton had invaded Iraq in 1998, the liberals would
have hailed him as the great liberator.
Actually, there were huge protests by liberals against the Kosovo
War. Now, Neo-liberals (who are very close to Neo-Conservatives, so
much so that you see Madeleine Albright sometimes refered to as a
Neo-Conservative) were supportive, but I have trouble seeing
Neo-Liberalism as anything but a philosophical mush intended to
split the difference between principled Liberalism and principled
Neo-Conservatism.
|7.24.08 @ 3:40PM|#
Nigel,
I'm quite aware of how narrow the acceptible philosphical positions
are for those you deem "lovers of liberty."
And I agree: Paulite/Taftian/Limburghian Non-Interventionism (in
military affaird, I know, I don't need to be reminded about their
open trade position) is the only philosophy that is consistent with
the philosophical premises of libertarianism.
The pro-war "libertarians" I've seen all fall into the argument "If
you don't support my Big Government Plan to encourage Liberty, you
don't support Liberty," and that's obviously not consistent with
libertarian philosophy.
|7.24.08 @ 3:40PM|#
I can just as easily, and just as accurately, note that
Military Isoalationism, Realism, and Neoconservatism are all not
Liberalism, but what's the point?
I think the point is that the average reader of Reason does not
like neoconservative interventionism for the exact same reason they
don't like Obama flavored interventionism.
Nigel Watt|7.24.08 @ 3:41PM|#
So joe, you see my point about how I don't care whether you call it neoconservatism or Rainbow Puppy Foreign Policy?
ed|7.24.08 @ 3:41PM|#
"Will we stand for the human rights of the dissident in
Burma, the blogger in Iran, or the voter in Zimbabwe? Will we give
meaning to the words "never again" in Darfur?"
Well, to be fair, Obama was a "community organizer." It's
on his resume. And what larger "community" is there to organize
than the whole friggin' world?
Taktix®|7.24.08 @ 3:43PM|#
Yeah, there's no difference between a relatively minor
military mission to stop genocide and a massively wasteful,
elective war based on lies with the goal of American hegemony in
the Middle East and the securing of oil contracts.
Ethan, please explain how intervening in Africa, runner up to the
Middle East for the Region-Embroiled-In-Perpetual-War Award, would
consist of a "minor military mission to stop genocide."
Need I cite our Somalia debacle? Why does every asshole with a
foreign cause think their intervention will be the one we get
right, this time around?
It never fucking works! They won't greet us liberators. Freedom at
the point of a gun is by definition to opposite of freedom.
Imperialist|7.24.08 @ 3:43PM|#
There are only two valid reasons to shed the blood of American service men and women; defense and conquest. Of course, conquest only comes after due diligence in a take/buy analysis.
|7.24.08 @ 3:43PM|#
joe,
If I can distract you from your terminological tautology tirade
temporarily, would you be so kind as to link us to this article
defining "Foreign Policy Liberalism"? I searched for in Wikipedia
as suggested, but failed to find it.
Hopefully it will explain the difference between a dead solider
with blood and oil on his hands and one with love and salvation in
his heart.
Episiarch|7.24.08 @ 3:44PM|#
Yeah, there's no difference between a relatively minor
military mission to stop genocide and a massively wasteful,
elective war based on lies with the goal of American hegemony in
the Middle East and the securing of oil contracts.
There's no difference when your viewpoint, as Nigel already said,
is "don't fucking intervene". Why is this so hard for you to
understand?
|7.24.08 @ 3:44PM|#
Nigel Watt,
I see your point, but you fail to see mine:
the fact that two political philosophies are unacceptable to you
does not mean that they are actually similar, or that the
differences are only rhetorical.
joshua,
I think the point is that the average reader of Reason does not
like neoconservative interventionism for the exact same reason they
don't like Obama flavored interventionism.
|7.24.08 @ 3:45PM|#
Yeah, there's no difference between a relatively minor
military mission to stop genocide and a massively wasteful,
elective war based on lies with the goal of American hegemony in
the Middle East and the securing of oil contracts.
Last I checked, Obama's plan was simply to move troops from Iraq
into Afghanistan and Pakistan (still leaving a sizable chunk in
Iraq, mind you)while maintaining an agressive posture towards Iran.
The fact that he wants to do this while increasing our military
presence elsewhere, minor or not, doesn't exactly separate him in a
good way from our current foreign policy.
Jason|7.24.08 @ 3:47PM|#
@Joshua corning
Isn't Obama-flavored "interventionism," (really something closer to
post-nationalism, imo) LESS BAD than neoconservative
interventionism? That is, if the choice is between McCain's
bear-hug embrace for PNAC, global wars, and endless occupations to
maintain US hegemony and Obama's insistence that we are morally
required to not ignore suffering or the absence of liberty in other
parts of the world, I'll take the Obama option every time. As a
compulsive consensus-seeker, Obama would be more constrained from
foreign misadventures not just by domestic politics, but by his
much warmer regard for international institutions.
|7.24.08 @ 3:47PM|#
When your viewpoint is "Is this good for the Jews?" there is no
difference between Naziism and Czarist Monarchism.
That doesn't mean they are the same thing, either.
As a matter of fact, the Tsars and the Nazis had very different
domestic policies and philosophies.
And now, hold onto your hats: you don't have to like either of them
in order to recognize that their policies and philosophies are
different.
|7.24.08 @ 3:49PM|#
"elective war based on lies with the goal of American hegemony
in the Middle East and the securing of oil contracts."
I think the war in Iraq is more about securing Israel. Over 4000
young Americans have lost their lives in order to make Israel more
secure.
|7.24.08 @ 3:50PM|#
Oops, tag thingies.
joshua,
I think the point is that the average reader of Reason does not
like neoconservative interventionism for the exact same reason they
don't like Obama flavored interventionism.
I can buy that. The above-average reader of Reason, on the other
hand, does not like neoconservatism for somewhat different reasons
than he does not like liberalism, because the above-average reader
of Reason understands that there are meaningful philosophical
differences beyond those that make libertarianism a distinct
philosophy.
|7.24.08 @ 3:51PM|#
"If you don't support my Big Government Plan to encourage
Liberty, you don't support Liberty,"
I don't think that has ever been said here.
I think you are conflating the fact that some libertarians here
have said that they support the war because they think it supports
liberty...and then lefties like you started saying Bush "says you
are with us or against us."
In your world it is an impossibility to agree to a premise but not
agree with the execution of proving that premise or even to
disagree with how other people present that premise.
robc|7.24.08 @ 3:51PM|#
DannyK,
Wilson is the father of neocon military policy. I prefer Wilsonian
international policy to "neocon" because it is neither new nor
conservative.
|7.24.08 @ 3:52PM|#
The problem may be that most people, and probably most people
here, see the denial of human rights in Burma, the harrassment of
speech in Iran, the terrorizing of voters in Zimbabwe and the
genocide in Darfur as "bad things" (which they are, who wants to
argue they are good things). Part of the defintion of recognizing
that something is a bad thing is to be upset by them and at the
very least to hope or want (or welcome) that they become better.
Some people go further and want to see something "done" about the
bad things.
To some degree any President, libertarian, liberal or
neo-conservative, would have to "do something" about these
problems. Even passive responses would have consequences and
therefore may be seen as a kind of "intervention" (for example, if
the Janjaweed asks a Ron Paul administration if they can purchase
military equipment to keep blowing up kids in Darfur and RP says no
sales to be made, he has "intervened" in some way).
So the real question to ask someone like Obama is, in what ways
will you address the bad things we find in many parts of the world?
Bush and McCain have an answer: regime change and pre-emptive war.
Would Obama engage in that? Because if not then his
"interventionism" would be less offensive to me...
Episiarch|7.24.08 @ 3:52PM|#
Wow, joe, you're aggressively not getting it. We don't care
about the differences in Obama's and neocon interventionism,
because they have the exact same results: us getting embroiled in
shit that isn't our business, our soldiers dying, our money spent
hand over fist, and it never fucking works.
Why you are trying to get us to discuss the finer points of your
system which we hate, I don't know. It's like arguing with me that
Battlefield Earth and Glitter are different
movies. Yeah, I know, but the important point is that they're both
horrible.
|7.24.08 @ 3:52PM|#
Hugh/not duck,
I believe the entry in Wikipedia on "Liberalism" has a link titled
"Foreign policy liberalism."
|7.24.08 @ 3:53PM|#
Actually, there were huge protests by liberals against the
Kosovo War.
I don't remember that. I do remember a lot of protesting by
Republicans that Kosovo did not impact the "national interest" and
that we shouldn't get involved.
Need I cite our Somalia debacle? Why does every asshole with a
foreign cause think their intervention will be the one we get
right, this time around?
Somalia may not have been a great idea, but I'll take a mission
involving a few thousand troops and a few hundred million dollars
any day over an invasion involving a full-scale foreign occupation
and a trillion dollars.
What's that you say? There's no difference? Riiiiighht.
No Name Guy|7.24.08 @ 3:53PM|#
Best right wing blog comment ever:
""That is the German's SOCIALIST Victory Column. It was built to
celebrate the victory of Germany during the socialist political
world wide movement"
Apparently, Kaiser Wilhelm I, Chancellor Bismarck, and the Prussian
Junkers/military officers were raging socialists now. Wow, just
wow.
|7.24.08 @ 3:53PM|#
I can buy that. The above-average reader of Reason, on the
other hand, does not like neoconservatism for somewhat different
reasons than he does not like liberalism, because the above-average
reader of Reason understands that there are meaningful
philosophical differences beyond those that make libertarianism a
distinct philosophy.
For someone who has such a hard time with economic class you sure
do like inventing other class systems for us to abide by.
|7.24.08 @ 3:54PM|#
Is John McCain not a citizen of the world? When his map
reaches the Atlantic Ocean, does it turn white and read "Here There
Be Dragons"?
If the map was white outside the US, he wouldn't be so
eager to bomb so much of it.
Nigel Watt|7.24.08 @ 3:55PM|#
the fact that two political philosophies are unacceptable to you does not mean that they are actually similar, or that the differences are only rhetorical.
I don't believe I've contested that.
|7.24.08 @ 3:57PM|#
joshua corning,
I don't think that has ever been said here. Actually, I
see it every day from the likes of John, TallDave, and RC Dean.
It's also quite prominent among other self-described libertarians,
such as Glenn Reynolds and Jonah Goldberg.
Nigel Watt|7.24.08 @ 3:57PM|#
It's like arguing with me that Battlefield Earth and Glitter are different movies. Yeah, I know, but the important point is that they're both horrible.
End of thread.
|7.24.08 @ 3:57PM|#
"There's no difference when your viewpoint, as Nigel already
said, is "don't fucking intervene"."
That would establish that both are contrary to your stated
principle, but that still leaves open the possibility that there
are varying degrees of egregiousness that can be recognized in the
violation of said principle.
It would be like the difference between your wife saying "honey, I
have to admit I kissed a co-worker last month" and her saying
"honey, I have to admit I got DPed by two maintenance men at my job
last month." Both are violations of the principle "don't fool
around on your spouse" but I think different responses might be
warranted...
|7.24.08 @ 3:58PM|#
It's like arguing with me that Battlefield Earth and Glitter
are different movies. Yeah, I know, but the important point is that
they're both horrible.
I liked Battlefeild earth...
Besides how many movies can you say are better then the book?
|7.24.08 @ 3:58PM|#
Episiarch,
Why you are trying to get us to discuss the finer points of
your system which we hate, I don't know.
Because most people have intellectual aspirations that go beyond
knowing what to hate?
I know, not really your bag.
|7.24.08 @ 3:59PM|#
In recent decades "foreign policy liberalism" often seems to amount to an eagerness to intervene in the name of high principles when the US national interest is slim to none, and a reluctance to intervene when there actually is a clear US national interest.
|7.24.08 @ 3:59PM|#
Jonah Goldberg is a self-described libertarian?
Hahahahaha!
Well, shit so am I then!
robc|7.24.08 @ 4:01PM|#
I once saw a breakdown of foreign policy that I found
interesting, basically splitting on intervention/non and
alliances/non. The names for the 4 categories were all democratic
presidents:
Jeffersonian Non-Interventionist/Non-Alliance
Jacksonian Interventionist/Non-Alliance
Wilsonian Interventionist/Alliance
Rooseveltian Non-Interventionist/Alliance
The idea being that Jacksonian and Wilsonian policy were both
actively warmongering but Jackson was of the "do it alone" variety
and Wilson of the "build an alliance" variety.
Jeffersonian and Rooseveltian were generally opposed to war, but if
you did, how you went about it was different. Roosevelt with strong
allies, Jefferson by going it alone.
There are, of course, shades within those categories even for those
particular presidents. They arent really archtypes, but I think it
makes a lot of sense.
In those senses, I think I prefer Jackson to Wilson for 3rd
place.
No Name Guy|7.24.08 @ 4:02PM|#
MNG-
Well, Jonah Goldberg did write a book that stated World War II was
a war against three fascist powers, led by Stalin and Roosevelt,
who were also fascist.
Yeah, it makes my head hurt, too.
And now, Prussia was a socialist state apparently. Even though, you
know, the writings of Karl Marx were FUCKING BANNED there, and he
himself EXILED.
Episiarch|7.24.08 @ 4:02PM|#
Because most people have intellectual aspirations that go
beyond knowing what to hate?
joe, I already know your entire fucking argument. Now, if
you want to discuss your intellect and aspiration (particularly the
hot kind), that's fine, but I don't feel like listening to you
endlessly explain your position which I already know.
|7.24.08 @ 4:02PM|#
Ethan, please explain how intervening in Africa, runner up
to the Middle East for the Region-Embroiled-In-Perpetual-War Award,
would consist of a "minor military mission to stop
genocide."
You conveniently dropped an important word from what I
wrote--"relatively."
|7.24.08 @ 4:03PM|#
Is John McCain not a citizen of the world?
Citizenship is a legal concept, and I wasn't aware of any
government with the authority to bestow world citizenship to
anyone.
The term "citizen of the world" is often used by people who wish to
downplay their national citizenship. I'm not sure what Obama was
thinking with that line; it probably tickled ears in Europe, but as
McCain says, that's not the electorate he's supposed to be playing
to.
|7.24.08 @ 4:04PM|#
Some people: "Obama's foreign policy is better than
McCain's."
Other people: "McCain's foreign policy is better than
Obama's."
A third group: "It doesn't matter because they both suck."
All three are valid viewpoints. But sometimes people in Group 1 are
making arguments against Point 2 to people in Group 3 (same for
people in Group 2, etc.), which is making this thread more
stressful than it needs to be.
|7.24.08 @ 4:05PM|#
Brian24,
You don't remember the college students screaming at
Albright?
I remember that there was a large minority of Republicans who
opposed the Kosovo War, too, and that it included people like Ron
Paul AND a number of prominent neo-conservatives.
Nigel Watt,
I don't believe I've contested that.
Did you not mean to suggest that the differences were only
rhetorical when you wrote:
So joe, you see my point about how I don't care whether
you call it neoconservatism or Rainbow Puppy Foreign
Policy?
I took that as an assertion that they are all the same thing, and
are merely "called" different things. If that wasn't your point, my
bad.
|7.24.08 @ 4:05PM|#
but I'll take a mission involving a few thousand troops and
a few hundred million dollars any day over an invasion involving a
full-scale foreign occupation and a trillion dollars.
Why choose? Vote McCain in November and get both.
Seriously, though. Yes, there is a difference in degree between
these actions, but not a difference in kind.
|7.24.08 @ 4:09PM|#
Hugh,
I agree. I'm not going to get the foreign policy I want out of this
election, but I'm not sure how I could get a worse one than
McCain's.
I'd like to say I'd prefer McCain's economic policy, but he himself
says he doesn't understand economics. I doubt he believes there's
an arena he shouldn't meddle in.
|7.24.08 @ 4:10PM|#
Papaya SF,
PapayaSF | July 24, 2008, 3:59pm | #
In recent decades "foreign policy liberalism" often seems to amount
to an eagerness to intervene in the name of high principles when
the US national interest is slim to none, and a reluctance to
intervene when there actually is a clear US national
interest.
That's a common talking point among neo-conservatives, but it's not
quite right. Liberal (as opposed to, say, Marxist) foreign policy
isn't hostile to American national interest (in the narrow sense
the Realists use the term). It just doesn't make its pursuit a high
priority. Certainly, it elevates humanitarian concerns above, or at
least to an equal positin with, national interest.
Liberals support NATO membership, for example, because we consider
it to be in our national interest, and to either advance our
humanitarian interests, or at least, not to harm them.
|7.24.08 @ 4:12PM|#
which is making this thread more stressful than it needs to
be.
All threads need to be at maximum stress levels at all times.
So i fail to see how this thread can ever be more stressful then
needed.
|7.24.08 @ 4:13PM|#
joe, I already know your entire fucking argument. Now, if
you want to discuss your intellect and aspiration (particularly the
hot kind), that's fine, but I don't feel like listening to you
endlessly explain your position which I already know.
OK. Bye!
|7.24.08 @ 4:18PM|#
Wiki-link
Liberal International Relations Theory
It's a bit short on concrete positions, but it outlines the theory
fairly well.
|7.24.08 @ 4:20PM|#
Look at it this way:
Hillary Clinton might send the Navy to operate a Womyn's Health
Clinic in Pakistan.
John McCain would send 450,000 troops in four military branches to
take over Pakistan, remove its government, occupy it, and try to
make it into an American protectorate.
Now, maybe you don't like Womyn's health clinics being operated by
the government. Mabye you don't like the idea of having 3000
American troops on sentry duty, protecting Darfuris. I can respect
those opinions, and understand the rational and even decent
principles of non-interverntionism that might lead you to oppose
those things.
But to pretend that a foreign policy that does things like that
cannot be meaningfully distinguished, both quantitatively AND
qualitatively, from neo-conservatism, is delusional.
Yup, non-interventionists don't have one of their own running for
president under the banner of either major party. I hardly think
that's the end of the discussion.
|7.24.08 @ 4:20PM|#
"Jeffersonian and Rooseveltian were generally opposed to war,
but if you did, how you went about it was different. Roosevelt with
strong allies, Jefferson by going it alone."
FDR opposed to war? He did everything he could to get us involved
in war. When he was Secretary of the Navy in WWI, he said, "It must
be nice to be a President in time of war."
|7.24.08 @ 4:25PM|#
Holy crap! Finally something that works, folks, remember this
incantation:
"joe, I already know your entire fucking argument. Now, if you want
to discuss your intellect and aspiration (particularly the hot
kind), that's fine, but I don't feel like listening to you
endlessly explain your position which I already know."
|7.24.08 @ 4:26PM|#
Liberal International Relations Theory
The link seems to support the meme that neoconservatism is closer
to liberal foreign policy then what joe is saying it is.
|7.24.08 @ 4:27PM|#
Somalia may not have been a great idea, but I'll take a
mission involving a few thousand troops and a few hundred million
dollars any day over an invasion involving a full-scale foreign
occupation and a trillion dollars.
The reason Somalia cost so much less in blood and treasure was
because we got the fuck out as soon as things started going
downhill, not because it was an inherently better operation. If
we'd been determined to "finish the job" in Somalia too, that may
well have evolved into a mess on the scale of Iraq...and thus it
will be with Darfur.
So, in short, if you're OK with accomplishing nothing and leaving
the site of your intervention a total basket case, a little bit of
blood and treasure will be enough.
|7.24.08 @ 4:28PM|#
"Liberals support NATO membership, for example, because we
consider it to be in our national interest"
I fail to see how our membership in NATO is in our national
interest.
|7.24.08 @ 4:29PM|#
Hillary Clinton might send the Navy to operate a Womyn's
Health Clinic in Pakistan.
Seriously? Is that what she thought Bush would do in Iraq when she
voted for the AUMF?
|7.24.08 @ 4:35PM|#
"Is John McCain not a citizen of the world?"
No and neither is Barack Obama. Unless you start equating "citizen
of the world" with "Earthling" which renders it a pretty
meaningless statement.
Borders may be artificial boundaries, but they're artificial
boundaries that keep me mostly separated from some bleak-ass
corners of the globe ruled by murderous thugs. When "World
Citizenship" starts guaranteeing me rights against the starvation,
rape and murder quite common throughout it, I'll sign up. Until
then it sounds a lot more like "World Subject" or "World Serf."
|7.24.08 @ 4:36PM|#
Hillary Clinton might send the Navy to operate a Womyn's
Health Clinic in Pakistan.
John McCain would send 450,000 troops in four military branches to
take over Pakistan, remove its government, occupy it, and try to
make it into an American protectorate.
The point is mute Hillary would not have the military capabilities
to do that if we did not have the military capability built up by
rhetoric to do the job of the John McCain view.
Do you think Hilary could do that if we had a military
isolationist's military?
Liberal foreign policy is dependent on the fear of the need for a
neocon foreign policy. In the absence of the neocon foreign policy
the liberal foreign policy would have to invent one a la gulf of
Tonkin.
The liberal foreign policy can only claim the mantel of relatively
less expensive because they can make false claims that they are any
different then the neocons.
Nigel Watt|7.24.08 @ 4:39PM|#
I took that as an assertion that they are all the same thing, and are merely "called" different things. If that wasn't your point, my bad.
It's like the difference between mosquitoes and gnats. There are substantive differences, but when I wake up itchy as hell the next morning, I don't take the time to identify which bite came from which.
|7.24.08 @ 4:42PM|#
Joshua Corning,
The link seems to support the meme that neoconservatism is
closer to liberal foreign policy then what joe is saying it
is. As with domestic policy neo-conservatism, foreign policy
neo-conservatism was invented, purposely and consciously, to
incorporate certain liberal ideas into a conservative framework;
some might say to make that conservative vision better by drawing
on the insights of liberalism in the conservative cause.
The emphasis on a "moralist" foreign policy, for example, never had
a home in any conservative philosophy before neo-conservatism, but
was a foundational plank of liberalism. That is, it was part of
what made foreign policy liberalism distinct from
conservatism.
As I said, there are areas of overlap between liberalism and
neoconservatism. There are also areas of overlap beteen
neoconservatism and military isolationism, and between
neoconservatism and realism.
bookworm,
I fail to see how our membership in NATO is in our national
interest. You don't see how it makes a country stronger to
have allies?
I'd say that one of the points that distinguishes liberalism and
neoconservatism from isolationism and realism is that each pair has
roughly similar definitions of the national interest, while within
each pair, each particular philosophy differs on the most moral and
practical method of pursuing that vision of the national
interest.
|7.24.08 @ 4:42PM|#
Yes, Joe, elevating humanitarian concerns over the national
interest is pretty much what I was referring to.
The correlation isn't perfect, but again and again I've seen
excited demands for intervention in the most out-of-the-way places
(East Timor, Rwanda, Darfur) from the same people who objected
other interventions that have a lot more to do with the national
interest. I know someone who opposes the Iraq war but criticizes
Clinton for not jumping into the middle of Rwanda, as if the 82nd
Airborne could have done much about a civil war where the warring
factions looked alike and didn't wear uniforms.
Johnny Nowhere|7.24.08 @ 4:43PM|#
Joe,
your 4:20PM comment goes back to something Episiarch wrote
upthread: that often intervention yields bloody results, regardless
of the philosophy that originated the policy.
Using your hypothetical situations, McCain's approach would surely
lead to fighting and deaths. However, I'm willing to bet that there
are folks in Pakistan who would happily attack Womyn's Centers for
any number of reasons, leading to fighting and deaths.
"Our Purpose is Noble!" only makes the policy setters feel better.
I'm guessing it doesn't do anything for the UN-AU peacekeepers
who've died in Darfur.
|7.24.08 @ 4:45PM|#
I fail to see how our membership in NATO is in our national
interest. You don't see how it makes a country stronger to have
allies?
Paying for other people's military does not make them allies only
dependents.
|7.24.08 @ 4:47PM|#
Occam's toothbrush,
We saved 500,000 people from starving to death in Somalia by
guarding those convoys. Nothing?
Seriously? Is that what she thought Bush would do in Iraq when
she voted for the AUMF?
OK, OK, Nancy Pelosi then. I'd call Hillary a Neo-Liberal, perhaps
even edging towards the Neo-Conservative direction.
|7.24.08 @ 4:51PM|#
joshua corning,
The point is mute Hillary would not have the military
capabilities to do that if we did not have the military capability
built up by rhetoric to do the job of the John McCain view.
Do you think Hilary could do that if we had a military
isolationist's military?
Liberal foreign policy is dependent on the fear of the need for a
neocon foreign policy.
I'm not sure I agree. For one thing, liberalism predated
neoconservatism by some seven decades. For another, going to war in
Vietnam was not a liberal project per se, but one that had support
across the ideological spectrum, like invading Afghanistan.
|7.24.08 @ 5:00PM|#
Papaya SF,
The correlation isn't perfect, but again and again I've seen
excited demands for intervention in the most out-of-the-way places
(East Timor, Rwanda, Darfur) from the same people who objected
other interventions that have a lot more to do with the national
interest. I know someone who opposes the Iraq war but criticizes
Clinton for not jumping into the middle of Rwanda, as if the 82nd
Airborne could have done much about a civil war where the warring
factions looked alike and didn't wear uniforms.
Well, for one thing, the Dutch military commander on the ground in
Rwanda stated that it would have taken only a show of force from
the battalion-sized unit they had to stop the genocide completely
within days.
I'd also say that foreign policy liberalism is also distinct from
foreign policy Marxism/leftism/radicalism or what have you. Most
liberals supported the invasion of Afghanistan, while most leftists
opposed it. The same can be said for East Timor. Leftists, as
opposed to liberals, actually do oppose humanitarian interventions
on occasion, specifically for the reason that they would tend to
advance the American (or European, or other hegemon's) national
interest, regardless of the humanitarian effect. I got into a brief
spat with someone from the Revolutionary Anti-Imperialist League
(RAIL) when he tried to hand me a flier about the Aussies' mission
into East Timor.
Finally, I'll also say that its become popular among neo- and
realist-conservatives to use humanitarian rationales to argue for
missions that are purely efforts in advancing the national
interest, and to claim that liberal opposition is based on
opposition to the national interest per se, when it is actually
based in skepticism to the claims about the humanitarianism of the
mission.
|7.24.08 @ 5:02PM|#
Obama wants to be president of the world.
I'm completely convinced we are living in the last days.
He is the one whose empty promises deceive the world. Everyone will
believe this guy has all the answers to all the worlds
problems.
It's all already been written down and coming to pass. Don't
believe me? Wait and see.
It's considered "hip" and "cool" to be an athiest these days and
"uncool" to know the truth. Who's the fool here?
A presidential candidate wooing the planet?
Athiests and people who deny the existance of God even believe this
guy is the Holy messiah.
Too bad your minds are blocked from knowing the truth.
|7.24.08 @ 5:06PM|#
It's like the difference between mosquitoes and gnats. There
are substantive differences, but when I wake up itchy as hell the
next morning, I don't take the time to identify which bite came
from which.
You might think that at first, but you'd be well advised to look a
little closer, as a gnat is harmless, but a mosquito bite may carry
malaria.
|7.24.08 @ 5:08PM|#
I don't want to feed the troll here, but I never met anybody who thought it was uncool to know the truth.
Warty|7.24.08 @ 5:21PM|#
That is some outstanding trolling. Reason should put that guy on the payroll.
Warty|7.24.08 @ 5:23PM|#
I got into a brief spat with someone from the Revolutionary
Anti-Imperialist League (RAIL)
You actually talk to those people? Hats off to you, I guess.
Other Matt|7.24.08 @ 5:30PM|#
Holy crap! Finally something that works, folks, remember
this incantation:
"joe, I already know your entire fucking argument. Now, if you want
to discuss your intellect and aspiration (particularly the hot
kind), that's fine, but I don't feel like listening to you
endlessly explain your position which I already know."
Memorized, but I don't believe joe can restrain himself. That's
part of the Doctor of Fuckwittery training.
Besides, joe doesn't really argue, he just changes definitions to
suit whatever purpose he has at the moment, and he's done sucked
y'all in for over 100 comments on his pendantic little fuckwitted
games.
The initial post really speaks to Obama's duplicity, which while I
hate to grant anything to the fuckwit moron, he's done a marvelous
job of hijacking the thread.
What Obama is essentially saying is "Intervention bad, unless I
like it", which is basically his approach to anything, "It's bad
unless I like it or change my mind and if you say I liked it once
I'll deny it!"
It's a totalitarian approach to the world, fine, he is what he is
and if y'all want to vote for him, just do so with open eyes. It
doesn't change that he is a flat out liar when he says "Oh, Iraq,
bad bad bad, have to leave because we shouldn't be in a another
country" then turns around and tries to salvage some image by
saying "Oh, Afganistan, good good good, let's send more people
there".
Fuckwit has managed to distract you into some bizarre little
discussion where he changes definitions here and there subtly to
keep people engaged, thus precluding any real dicussion of how
Obama is a dangerous liar who does his best to have no position
defined on anything. This is intentional, we all know, simply
because Obama is a Dem and joe's a moron.
So, Brian24, it isn't about truth, it's about joes' games to try to
distract people from what Obama really is, so they can go back to
just thinking "Change" and not really think too much about Obama's
definition of it.
That said, all I'll say about intervention is if you're going to
go, go. I remember being in a ship of Lebanon when the Marine
barracks went up, not good. A peacekeeping force is at least
partially based on the implied threat that if you fuck with them,
you're going to get hammered. Reagan's approach was "Sorry our
Marines got in the way of your bomb, we'll leave now." Doesn't give
the implied threat much credence. Clinton had a chance to reverse
this in Somalia, but instead we gave them a national holiday. If
you're gonna go, go, and don't stop, Roman style. If you're not
willing to do that, don't go. It's that simple.
Not Voting|7.24.08 @ 5:35PM|#
"Tonight, I speak to you not as a candidate for President, but
as a citizen - a proud citizen of the United States, and a fellow
citizen of the world."
Hey, I'm not speaking as a candidate for President either, so
when's my turn to give a speech in front of throngs of Germans and
the global media in Berlin?
Mr anonymous|7.24.08 @ 5:40PM|#
Oh, puh-leez. Compare to McCain, who wants to throw China and Russia out of the G8, instigating a new Cold War.
There's probably a better argument for throwing Russia and China
out of the G8 than there is for invading the Sudan and that's not
because there's a good argument for starting a second Cold
War.
Besides, if we're going to get another Cold War, I'd like it to be
for a better reason than that we have accidentally blown up the
Chinese Ambassador during a "peacekeeping mission" to some unknown
country in the middle of nowhere that has no relevance to the
interests of the American people.
Athiests and people who deny the existance of God even believe this guy is the Holy messiah.
Well, I'm agnostic and I find your crap to be slightly
less irritating than Obama's crap. So, I guess, there goes
that one.
Anonymous|7.24.08 @ 5:40PM|#
but I never met anybody who thought it was uncool to know
the truth
Well, there's too much single-minded, blind-folded, in-bred
philosophizing going on in the internet (cf. Kos, and to an
increasing-but-not-quite-at-the-same amount LGF). That is exactly
the culture that puts peer pressure (making it "un-cool") on
revealing facts that contradict the Party Line. So you probably do
know a whole lot of people like that, and each would vehemently
deny it, and probably insult you because of the perceived insult to
them. Their politics is of offense and insult, not of truth and
consequences.
Well, Jonah Goldberg did write a book that stated World War II
was a war against three fascist powers, led by Stalin and
Roosevelt, who were also fascist.
Yeah, it makes my head hurt, too.
If you assume they were fascist powers, then it makes sense for
them to fight in a free-for-all for power: that's what fascism is
about.
"It's bad unless I like it or change my mind and if you say I
liked it once I'll deny it!"
Not only that, but the loyal troops fall in line to deny it as
well. What's with the resistance to recognizing that as
creepy?
Hey, I'm not speaking as a candidate for President either, so
when's my turn to give a speech in front of throngs of Germans and
the global media in Berlin?
1. Give Chris Matthews a tingle up his leg.
2. ???
3. Speech in Berlin!
George Washington|7.24.08 @ 5:44PM|#
It is our true policy to steer clear of permanent alliances with any portion of the foreign world
|7.24.08 @ 6:04PM|#
Actually, I see it every day from the likes of John,
TallDave, and RC Dean.
Utter horseshit, joe, at least in my case. I don't think I have
ever said "If you don't support my Big Government Plan to encourage
Liberty, you don't support Liberty." I'm gonna need a link for
that.
I understand perfectly well the POV of libertarians who didn't want
to go into Iraq. I still think the initial decision was the least
bad alternative that we had at the time, based not so much on its
liberty-enhancing attributes, but on what I saw as the strategic
alternatives that we had and their likely outcomes.
I have never said that supporting the Iraq war was a pre-requisite
for being a libertarian.
You're usually better than this. Call it a day, and come back fresh
tomorrow.
|7.24.08 @ 6:15PM|#
Yes, Other Matt, you can't follow the discussion so I must be
spouting nonsense.
Barack Obama doesn't argue the positions you assigned to him, so
he's flip-flopping.
Yawn.
|7.24.08 @ 6:19PM|#
RC Dean,
I don't think I have ever said "If you don't support my Big
Government Plan to encourage Liberty, you don't support
Liberty."
Are you kidding me? You make a habit of accusing anyone who doesn't
support the Great Crusade To Civilize the Musselmen of not
believing Arabs are capable of liberty, and of wanting them to be
ruled by Saddam Hussein. You do this on a daily basis. Are you
kidding me?
Kolohe|7.24.08 @ 6:32PM|#
While Barack Obama took a premature victory lap today in the
heart of Berlin, proclaiming himself a 'citizen of the world,' John
McCain continued to make his case to the American citizens who will
decide this election.
maybe it's already been said, but the most hackish thing about this
is that about a month or so ago, McCain was making trips and giving
speeches in Canada and Columbia. I thought this would inoculate
Obama with these foreign trips, because I did think at the time
that if Obama made these trips he would be criticized as a global
elitist.
Mind you, I am very surprised at the amount of foreign travel from
both sides; I don't remember any in the previous political
campaigns of my lifetime.
Anonymous|7.24.08 @ 7:01PM|#
McCain was making trips and giving speeches in Canada and
Columbia.
Was the media going around interviewing the natives asking who
they'd vote for? (This is an honest question.) I even saw it on BBC
via PBS not more than twenty minutes ago.
JB|7.24.08 @ 7:05PM|#
I can't wait to see all the liberals vote for neocon
Obama.
But remember, people cheer when Democrats kill 3rd worlders.
Kolohe|7.24.08 @ 7:18PM|#
Was the media going around interviewing the natives asking
who they'd vote for?
I will say that coverage that Obama's trip is getting has
definitely outsized from what McCain got. McCain's coverage was
only as an afterthought, 'Obama today held a big rally while in
other news McCain gave a talk on trade in Ottawa.' Compared to now
where just the fact that Obama was making a trip made news.
MlR|7.24.08 @ 11:02PM|#
Time for the Hipster "Libertarians" to realize the Democrats are
just as intervenist as the the Republicans? With the extra bonus of
even more more domestic socialism and nanny-statism?
Nah, probably not. There's still people to impress.
MlR|7.24.08 @ 11:22PM|#
just as intervenist as the the Republicans?
*just as interventionist as the Republicans
Long day at work.
Both parties have more or less the same playbook internationally.
Occasionally they bicker over the tactics and rile up their bases,
but they're both entirely game for Team America, World Police.
|7.25.08 @ 1:09AM|#
"Citizen of the world". It's a dumb line, and Obama--a purported
constitutional law scholar--should know better. A "citizen" is, by
definition, a person who is entitled to protection from a sovereign
state. A citizen is a member of a discrete polity, with attendant
civil rights and obligations. Citizenship was what the Dred Scott
case was all about back in 1857: The Supreme Court ruled that
blacks were not citizens of the United States and were not entitled
to the rights of American citizens. Section 1 of the 14th Amendment
was designed to correct that by explicitly providing that persons
born in the United States are citizens of the U.S. and of the State
in which they reside. There's nothing controversial about the
concept.
Without a state, there can be no citizenship. And there can be no
"world citizenship" because there is no worldwide state. QED.
Obama lets his rhetoric overtake his brain sometimes.
Anonymous|7.25.08 @ 6:46AM|#
A "citizen" is, by definition, a person who is entitled to
protection from a sovereign state.
Yeah, his NWO slip was showing.
|7.25.08 @ 11:15AM|#
Yeah, his NWO slip was showing
Hmm...he is from Chigaco, so he probably has worked with the
Ministry guys.
Anonymous|7.25.08 @ 11:40AM|#
"Featuring Nigga's Wit O'bama: the league for negro Irish hip-hop artists. First up: 'Dawk Braun' with MC 'Kiss Browny Stone'"
Site comments/questions:
Media Inquiries and Reprint Permissions:
(310) 367-6109
Editorial & Production Offices:
3415 S. Sepulveda Blvd.
Suite 400
Los Angeles, CA 90034
(310) 391-2245