 |
| |
|
|
Saint Marcus
|
 |
Scio Me Nihil Scire
Jan 1970
time: 06:17
|
|
From the Guardian, on Britain and the USA:
quote:
The most important political story of our time is the rise of the American Right and the near collapse of American liberalism. This has transformed the political and cultural geography of the United States and now it is set to transform the political and cultural geography of the West. Britain's reflex reactions to an ally with whom we apparently share so much and which has served us well are going to be tested as never before.
The signals are all around. It takes extraordinary circumstances to produce the kind of warnings voiced over the last week by Chris Patten, EU commissioner for external affairs and former chairman of the Conservative Party, but these circumstances are extraordinary. Patten has damned the emerging US reliance on its fantastic military superiority over all other nations to pursue what it wants as it wants as an 'absolutist and simplistic' approach to the rest of the world that is ultimately self-defeating. It is also intellectually and morally wrong. He is the first ranking British politician to state so boldly what has been a commonplace in France and Germany for weeks.
The most obvious flashpoint is the weight of evidence that after Afghanistan George Bush intends a massive military intervention to topple Iraq's Saddam Hussein. Dangerous dictator he may be, but the unilateral decision to declare war upon another state without a casus belli other than suspicion will upset the fabric of law on which international relations rests, as well as destabilising the Middle East.
American loyalists shrug their shoulders; Tony Blair is reported to have said privately that 'if we can get rid of Baghdad, we should', a devastatingly naive remark which so far stands uncorrected. This is the traditional British view that insists we stick close to the US. It remains the same good America that has been on the right side of the great conflicts of the last 100 years; worthwhile allies put up with the bad decisions as well as the good.
But it's not the same good America. The postwar US that reconstructed Europe and led an international liberal economic and social order has disappeared completely. Its former leaders would no more volunteer the scale of defence spending now contemplated in the US - a 12 per cent, $48 billion increase on an already stunning military budget - while offering the less developed countries close to nothing in increased aid flows, debt relief and market access than fly to the Moon. Yet Bush has only agreed to attend next month's crucial UN conference in Monterey on global governance and Third World development strategies if it is understood that the question of money is not be raised.
It is this essential stance, along with the tearing down of international weapons treaties and last week's feeble move on global warming that tells us how profoundly conservative the US has become. Unilateralism, as Patten argues, is not in itself ignoble - states pursue their self-interests - but US unilateralism is uncompromisingly absolutist because it is ideological, which is what it makes so dangerous.
American conservatism, following the teaching of the influential conservative American political philosopher Leo Strauss, unites patriotism, unilateralism, the celebration of inequality and the right of a moral ‚lite to rule into a single unifying ideology. As Professor Shadia Drury describes in Leo Strauss and the American Right (St Martin's Press), Strauss's core idea that just states must be run by moral, religious, patriotic individuals and that income redistribution, multilateralism and any restraint on individual liberty are mortal enemies of the development of such just ‚lites is the most influential of our times.
Paul Wolfowitz, the deputy secretary of state for defence pushing for an early invasion of Iraq, is a Straussian. So is John Ashcroft, the attorney-general, who has legislated for military tribunals both to try and execute suspected terrorists beyond the rule of law. Straussians build up the military capacity of the nation while invoking the Bible and the flag. This is not prejudice; this is a coherent ideological position.
The emergence of the largely reactionary south and west of the US as its new economic and political centres of gravity; the weakness of its rules on campaign finance which allow rich, usually conservative, candidates to buy elections; the inability of American liberals to fight back; the embrace of Straussian ideas, laced with traditional anti-tax, free-market nostrums - these ingredients make a deadly cocktail.
They have transformed American politics, so that even an essentially progressive President like Clinton found himself behaving, as he acknowledged, like an Eisenhower Republican, while being the object of a co-ordinated conservative conspiracy in first the Whitewater investigations and later the Starr inquiry. The Supreme Court's suspension of the Florida recount in December 2000, to gift the presidency to Bush, is part of the same story.
This destructive conservatism is contested fiercely, especially on the liberal, internationalist seaboards. Many good Americans are as bewildered by their current leaders and ideas as we are. But they are not in control. What the world has to deal with is not just the Bush administration, but the internal forces that put it there and will continue to constrain the US even without it. Iraq, the continuing defence build-up, disdain for international law and total uninterest in the 'soft' aspects of security - aid, trade, health, education and debt - are now givens in US policy.
Before this challenge, Britain, in its own self-interest, has to play the same balance-of-power politics it used to do in eighteenth- and nineteenth-century Europe. That means siding with the EU and no longer being US conservatism's lapdog. We cannot, for example, be part of the US national missile defence system if its purpose is to destroy the fabric of international law or join America's war against Iraq.
Mr Blair should beware. Trying to be both pro-European and pro-American will no longer work. There is a choice and, if he does not make it, ultimately it will wreck his premiership. In an era of globalisation, it is international affairs that determine the fate of governments, because party Whips cannot contain the consequent passions. The Tories broke over Europe. Labour will break over too-slavish fealty to this US. |
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Worthingtons
|
|
Pride Park,Derby
Jan 2002
time: 05:17
|
|
Yes, our mighty empire should waken itself to the atrocities america is commiting and declare war on them..... well, perhaps that going a little far
|
|
| |
|
|
|
DinoDoc
|
 |
AECCP loves Democracy
Sep 1999
time: 23:17
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Sagacious Dolphin
I'll have you know that Britain is the least compliant of all the 51 states.  |
Tony Blair's office. Tony's doing some, uh, British government stuff, whatever they do there except burn sheep and have sex scandals, not necessarily in that order. Suddenly, line to Washington rings. tony lifts the phone.
"Hello?"
"Oh, hello, George. You wish to discuss foreign politics?"
"Yes."
"Yes."
"Yes."
"Yes."
"Yes."
"Yes."
Just your typical British toadying to America going on. But then, something happens. Fiery look takes over Blair's face, his back straightens, and it looks like he has gained few cents. He bangs his fist on table, and veins on his forehead stand out as he sternly intones:
"For the last time, George, answer to your question is NO!"
And then he hangs up the phone.
Aides come in, wondering.
"You said no... how did you dare to do it... I wouldn't have... You said no..."
And Tony kicks back, puts his hands behind his head, rises his feet on desk, and smiles a bit and says:
"Well... George just wanted to know if I've ever noticed any disagreements in our warm and close relationship."
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Shi Huangdi
|
 |
Pittsburgh, PA
Apr 1999
time: 00:17
|
|
"The most important political story of our time is the rise of the American Right and the near collapse of American liberalism."
Whoever wrote this is an idiot who knows nothing of US politics. Yes, right now the Conservatives are in power. With another election a liberal could take power. The political parties alternate, just as in the UK. Liberalism has far from collapsed-- a liberal nearly won the presidency and a liberal is the majority leader of the Senate.
"as an 'absolutist and simplistic' approach to the rest of the world that is ultimately self-defeating."
Right. We are good, those who support terrorism are bad.
"Dangerous dictator he may be, but the unilateral decision to declare war upon another state without a casus belli other than suspicion will upset the fabric of law on which international relations rests,"
First off, we are not going to unilaterally declare war on anyone. We can't topple Saddam without the support of some of Iraq's neighbors, so any decision we make will not be unilateral. Afghanistan was not unilateral either-- we had support of nearly all the international community. Most complaints about US unilateralism have to do with internal US affairs- such as environmental policy.
"Its former leaders would no more volunteer the scale of defence spending now contemplated in the US "
That defense spending is because we were attacked and we are at war. Nations increase their defense budget when they go to war.
"increased aid"
We aid countries by helping them to remove their opressive governments, as we did recently in Afghanistan and Kosovo.
"international weapons treaties"
How does getting rid of the Anti-Missle Defense system hurt Britain's interest? Notice how even Putin's complaints were minimal.
"influential conservative American political philosopher Leo Strauss"
Influenital? I have never heard of him. Sounds like someone is using a strawman.
"the celebration of inequality"
Is this person trying to be funny?
"The emergence of the largely reactionary south and west of the US as its new economic and political centres of gravity"
The west and east coasts are still strong. But saying the west is reactionary is absurd-- Gore won every state that borders the Great Lakes except Ohio and Indiana.
"the weakness of its rules on campaign finance which allow rich, usually conservative, candidates to buy elections"
A campaign finance law is about to soon be passed, and even still the Democrats have plenty rich donors.
"President like Clinton found himself behaving, as he acknowledged, like an Eisenhower Republican,"
Clinton was very concerned with pushing an international liberal agenda-- he built up relations with Russia and China and did humanitarian interventions such as Kosovo and Somalia.
"The Supreme Court's suspension of the Florida recount in December 2000, to gift the presidency to Bush, is part of the same story."
Future recounts showed that even if the recount had gone forward, Bush still would have won.
"That means siding with the EU and no longer being US conservatism's lapdog."
Britain is not the US's lapdog, rather Blair has a lot of influence in US foreign policy because he is our strong ally. And whether the author realizes it or not, the US is still allied with most EU nations.
"
The article didn't say the Democrats are liberal."
They aren't? The democratic candidate for President's slogan was "The people, not the powerful". Clinton was an internationalist, and an environmentalist. The Senate is controlled by the Democrats, and the Senate Democrats are controlled by it's liberal leadership.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
The Andy-Man
|
 |
Tory Party of 'Poly
Jul 2001
time: 05:17
|
|
a very good article imo. and that american dude that rote that massive thing discrediting everything in the article, well, he watches to much US propaganda. USA has never been liberal (prohibition, war on marijuana). and USA isnt at war, its just got another excuse to bomb ppl, used to be communism, now its terrorism.
ppl havnt realised that Englands last hold as an international power is through the US. without the US support the UK just becoes as importan as france on international terms.
the US also needs the UK so it has an ally in Europe, withut UK the US no longer has a reason to be there - if the UK sided with europe instead of the US then all american campaghnes and forces in europe would be kindly asked to leave, europe would put is own carrier fleets in the mediterrainian and protect its own shipping, thus they are no longer dependant in ANYWAY of the US, for europe is capable of finding its own trading partners.
I also beleive that the USA would be willing to goto war with europe because of this, for once europe starts building or merging its own military, then the US is no longer in a postition to do what it wants.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
ThePantaloonDog
|
 |
Baltimore, Maryland but currently in dirty, dirty New London CT
Feb 2001
time: 00:17
|
|
quote:
Whoever wrote this is an idiot who knows nothing of US politics. Yes, right now the Conservatives are in power. With another election a liberal could take power. The political parties alternate, just as in the UK. Liberalism has far from collapsed-- a liberal nearly won the presidency and a liberal is the majority leader of the Senate. |
The Democrats are no where near liberal. If anything they are a centrists party.
quote:
Right. We are good, those who support terrorism are bad. |
Wrong. We are far from right and those who we say support terrorism can simply labeled "bad". Because of Bush's incompetent comment about Iran the conservative religous fanatics now have more power and just made life harder for people fighting for democratic reforms.
quote:
First off, we are not going to unilaterally declare war on anyone. We can't topple Saddam without the support of some of Iraq's neighbors, so any decision we make will not be unilateral. Afghanistan was not unilateral either-- we had support of nearly all the international community. Most complaints about US unilateralism have to do with internal US affairs- such as environmental policy. |
I agree with you and with Bush's ever friendly foreign policy it will be nearly impossible to do anything in Iraq.
quote:
That defense spending is because we were attacked and we are at war. Nations increase their defense budget when they go to war. |
People like to throw that word around a lot. War on drugs, War on terroism, War on the enviroment... But who are we at war with, terroists? Well terroists can be defined in all sorts of ways. The distinction between terroism and freedom fighting is based on perspective.
quote:
We aid countries by helping them to remove their opressive governments, as we did recently in Afghanistan and Kosovo. |
Or help clean up the messes when we try to get rid of the oppressive governments we propped up.
quote:
How does getting rid of the Anti-Missle Defense system hurt Britain's interest? Notice how even Putin's complaints were minimal. |
I really doubt a missile defense system will ever be put into place but does lead to more nukes. Generally not a good thing.
quote:
Influenital? I have never heard of him. Sounds like someone is using a strawman. |
I've never heard of him either...
quote:
Is this person trying to be funny? |
No, the author is just being ignorant.
quote:
The west and east coasts are still strong. But saying the west is reactionary is absurd-- Gore won every state that borders the Great Lakes except Ohio and Indiana. |
I don't understand the author's comment either. The east is more progressive (I wouldn't say liberal) and almost got Gore elected.
quote:
A campaign finance law is about to soon be passed, and even still the Democrats have plenty rich donors. |
True. If anyone believes the Democrats don't have their hands in the cookie jar is just ignorant.
quote:
Clinton was very concerned with pushing an international liberal agenda-- he built up relations with Russia and China and did humanitarian interventions such as Kosovo and Somalia. |
The author is talking about welfare reform and the fumbling of a national health care system. Clinton signing on welfare reform stopped any dreams of having a real liberal AMerican president.
quote:
Future recounts showed that even if the recount had gone forward, Bush still would have won. |
Still having the judicial branch decide who should run the executive branch stinks of judges playing politicians.
quote:
Britain is not the US's lapdog, rather Blair has a lot of influence in US foreign policy because he is our strong ally. And whether the author realizes it or not, the US is still allied with most EU nations. |
I do think the European press is trying make the division between the American government and the European governments more than it is, most Europe criticism has been on the mark. Tony Blair really does seem to be America's lap dog since he has for the majority of the time not said anything about Bush's obvious flaws in his foreign policy.
quote:
They aren't? The democratic candidate for President's slogan was "The people, not the powerful". Clinton was an internationalist, and an environmentalist. The Senate is controlled by the Democrats, and the Senate Democrats are controlled by it's liberal leadership. |
They aren't. I'm sure Republicans have used similiar slogans and Clinton as an enviromentalists was a joke. The Democrats for the most part are remarkably similiar to the Republicans. The only real issues that Democrats differ from Republicans is school vouchers and some stuff on the enviroment.
There still is no major liberal party in America to speak of.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Shi Huangdi
|
|
Pittsburgh, PA
Apr 1999
time: 00:17
|
|
"and USA isnt at war"
We are at war, though not in a traditional sense. We just faced a severe attack from Al-Qaeda, we now need to send forces itnernationally to get them. Even know we have troops in Afghanistan.
"I also beleive that the USA would be willing to goto war with europe because of this"
I doubt it. You talk about siding with the US or Europe, but that is silly because US and Europe are allied through NATO. The US has no reason to fight the EU and vice versa.
"The Democrats are no where near liberal. If anything they are a centrists party."
Which is why they wanted to not give tax cuts to the rich, ensure perscription drugs for all, raise the minimum wage, etc.
"we say support terrorism can simply labeled "bad"."
You are right, they can simply be labeled bad. You probably mis-spoke however and forgot to put the cannot. In any case though if they are actively harboring and supporting terrorist that work against us, that represents a causus belli.
"Because of Bush's incompetent comment about Iran the conservative religous fanatics now have more power and just made life harder for people fighting for democratic reforms."
Democratic reforms were not happening anyway. All power was held by the Ayatollah, and considering their leadership is made up of religious fanatics, they probably were not considering giving it up. By calling them what they are, it will make it easier for the public to support action against them if that is deemed neccesary.
"and with Bush's ever friendly foreign policy it will be nearly impossible to do anything in Iraq."
We'll see what comes out diplomatically.
"The distinction between terroism and freedom fighting is based on perspective."
Well, the ones we are fighting, Al Qaeda, are pretty bad. They want to kill Americans, because we stand in the way of their goal of uniting all of Islam into one big fundamentalist state.
"oppressive governments we propped up."
We did not prop up Milsoevich. We also did not prop up the Taliban, we propped up the Mujahadieen, and the Taliban took power later.
"Clinton signing on welfare reform stopped any dreams of having a real liberal AMerican president."
I don't think Clinton had any real deeply held political beliefs, other than advancing his own power and popularity. Gore would have been more liberal probably.
"Still having the judicial branch decide who should run the executive branch stinks of judges playing politicians."
Such situation are unwelcome, but there was a legitmate question of law in the case, and when big enough such questions of law are handled by the supreme court in the US.
"Clinton as an enviromentalists was a joke"
What do you mean? He gave many new pro-environment executive orders, and created vast swaths of new Federal land.
"The only real issues that Democrats differ from Republicans is school vouchers and some stuff on the enviroment."
Not true. Many democrats, including Gore, favor perscription drugs for seniors. Democrats are pro-gun control. Many favor funding for abortion. They want to spend more on education and health care. They want to spend less on defense. They want tax cuts to be mainly reserved for the middle class. They favor Gay Rights more. They are liberal on most issues.
"And it's not surprising you don't know him (how many political philosophers of the 20th century do you know?). "
Plenty-- Friedman, Rand, Lenin, Stalin, Mussolini, Morgenthau, etc.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Bereta_Eder
|
|
why don't you want to join us?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Bereta_Eder
|
|
you remind me of a british politician I heard in a conference in my postgraduat studies (don't remember his name) he was wittingly sayin the same things.
he gave me the impression of a man stuck in the past somewhat.
his main beef was with the germans and how to contain the germans and so on...
|
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:17.
Apolyton Time is 00:17. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
17-02-2002 18:40
?
coming to think about it he was always speaking about thatcher and seemed to have an unhealthy fascination for her. could he had been a 
|