A hawkish left?

[boji]

allows the right wing to use their classic playbook and get away with robbing the bank.

'Peace and redistributive wealth' are on the lips of democratic leaders, but their feet are only 2% out of step with the right concerning military expenditures. 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/defense-spending-is-americas-cancerous-bipartisan-consensus/2019/07/18/783a9e1a-a978-11e9-9214-246e594de5d5_story.html

And amazingly, recent polls show the left to be more hawkish than the right?!?

https://theintercept.com/2019/01/11/as-democratic-elites-reunite-with-neocons-the-partys-voters-are-becoming-far-more-militaristic-and-pro-war-than-republicans/

 

[cyrano]

You really have to stop seeing the world in black and white.

Big Business has corrupted most governments up to a level that there's no more left and right. There's bought and paid for. And there still are a few good people out there. But these can't even "talk" to their constituents, because of filtering.

That filtering is owned by Big Business. And it's driven by your data.

 

[JohnRoberts]

As usual this isn't all that simple...

As one former president famously offered, "Speak softly but carry a big stick". Meaning that one way to avoid conflict is to possess overwhelming force. That is pretty much already the situation between major super powers who do not want direct conflict with other super powers for obvious reasons.  That said we see attacks from non-state actors (ISIS, al Qaeda, and too many to list. ) Then we have bad actors in the region supporting multiple proxy wars across the region to promote their sundry regional agendas.

I like the recent shift away from placing American military boots on the ground in numerous foreign conflicts, while we need to be aware of power vacuums created by any sudden force withdrawals (like Syria, that Putin was more than happy to fill. Maybe he'd like to occupy Afghanistan again?  : ).

Legislators are unduly influenced by military programs that generate jobs in their districts. Sometimes leading to undeserved support for military projects that are no longer mission critical. This is just one aspect of the military industrial complex President Eisenhower warned about decades ago. 

Regrettably we are in a generational war with radical islam that will not be settled by bullets and bombs (or in my lifetime), while military force can have a place to make statements to influence sentiment (like what happened to that ISIS caliphate?).

Showing weakness just encourages more aggression from bad actors (like peace talks with Taliban in Afghanistan that were perceived as weakness and led them to truck bomb Kabul.) 

JR

 

[boji]

You really have to stop seeing the world in black and white.

That was the point of the post, as it opened with a polarizing quote.

 

[leadpoisoning]

anyone who's been paying attention has been seeing what was formerly referred to as 'the left' (now 'neoliberals' under the new plan) drifting steadily and surely to the right. This has been going on since at least the early 90s as far as i can tell - in tandem in the US and UK (at least) with Clinton say in the US and John Major in the UK under the labour party flag. Things are really getting quite absurd. I guess this is why many have been clinging to the 'liberal' as opposed to 'left' moniker perhaps - though 'neoliberal' seems to suit them well. There seem to be no significant parties left in the US who are actually left of centre at all ... that i can tell at any rate. GAH!

'Peace and redistributive wealth' are on the lips of democratic leaders, but their feet are only 2% out of step with the right concerning military expenditures. 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/defense-spending-is-americas-cancerous-bipartisan-consensus/2019/07/18/783a9e1a-a978-11e9-9214-246e594de5d5_story.html

And amazingly, recent polls show the left to be more hawkish than the right?!?

https://theintercept.com/2019/01/11/as-democratic-elites-reunite-with-neocons-the-partys-voters-are-becoming-far-more-militaristic-and-pro-war-than-republicans/

 

[cyrano]

That was the point of the post, as it opened with a polarizing quote.

It wasn't aimed at you, personally. I'm sorry, in hindsight I see that it must come over like that.

It's just a general feeling when I read the discussions here. It isn't very constructive to have only two parties, as it ends in "we and them".

John's post is a prime example. "We" need lots of weapons, because the world is bad. Obviously completely blind for the fact that most of current threats have been created by the same camp, somehow.

There's no reason to doubt that nations need armies for defense. There is, however no logic in having a hundred times more weapons than the next one on the list. It's a kind of economic warfare, stopping the world from solving some real problems.

The myth of the common enemy, if you want. A malicious version of the emperor's clothes...

 

[living sounds]

anyone who's been paying attention has been seeing what was formerly referred to as 'the left' (now 'neoliberals' under the new plan) drifting steadily and surely to the right. This has been going on since at least the early 90s as far as i can tell - in tandem in the US and UK (at least) with Clinton say in the US and John Major in the UK under the labour party flag. Things are really getting quite absurd. I guess this is why many have been clinging to the 'liberal' as opposed to 'left' moniker perhaps - though 'neoliberal' seems to suit them well. There seem to be no significant parties left in the US who are actually left of centre at all ... that i can tell at any rate. GAH!

"Neoliberal" is a term reserved for post-New-Deal-era proponents of laissez-faire capitalism.

I think what you mean are "Neoconservatives", which is the most adequate term for the pro-interventionist "liberal hawks".

This is nothing new at all, Franklin D. Roosevelt, Harry S. Truman, John F. Kennedy and Lyndon B. Johnson all were described as liberal haws.

"Left" and "right" may be used to describe social liberalism vs authoritarianism or economic pro-regulation leftism vs. pro-market rightism.

There is, of course, the pacifist strand on the left and its jingoist antagonist on the right.

It is not much disputed that there has been a pro-market anti-regulation anti-tax anti-interventionist (economically) wave from the late 70s well into the 21st century. Since these policies cause long-term instability due to their tendency to increase inequality and social disruption, especially in combination with globalization and technological innovations, momentum has been building for the pendulum to swing back to the left.

Take a look at the platforms of Democratic presedential candidates like Bernie Sanders or Elisabeth Warren, they are quite obviously to the left of the "third way" Democrats (or social democrats in Europe).

In the US this shift happened before (FDR), and - if democracy is allowed to run its course - is poised to be happen again.

 

[JohnRoberts]

It wasn't aimed at you, personally. I'm sorry, in hindsight I see that it must come over like that.

It's just a general feeling when I read the discussions here. It isn't very constructive to have only two parties, as it ends in "we and them".

John's post is a prime example. "We" need lots of weapons, because the world is bad. Obviously completely blind for the fact that most of current threats have been created by the same camp, somehow.

There's no reason to doubt that nations need armies for defense. There is, however no logic in having a hundred times more weapons than the next one on the list. It's a kind of economic warfare, stopping the world from solving some real problems.

The myth of the common enemy, if you want. A malicious version of the emperor's clothes...

And I thought I was the optimist.  :  Indeed the world is dangerous (even Mexico is dangerous), and there are many bad people doing bad things, to good people.

If the US fully withdraws a moderating influence from all the world problem areas, a friendly tea party does not suddenly break out. More like what is happening in Syria right now where Putin rushed in to cement his influence (and a sea port) in the middle east.  Turkey with a new sheriff in town is cleansing "terrorists" (known to the rest of the world as Kurds) from its border region with Syria. Putin is happy to drive a wedge deeper between Turkey and the EU, weakening NATO in the process.

Does anybody think Assad, with Putin having his back, will not massacre his last civil war opposition hold outs in Idlib province? It's going to get real nasty for around 1M people there.

I do not trust globalists (?) either.  Everybody has an agenda...  including us, but at least we nominally promote liberty and freedom, while that is never simple or easy.

JR

 

[volker]

I like the recent shift away from placing American military boots on the ground in numerous foreign conflicts, while we need to be aware of power vacuums created by any sudden force withdrawals (like Syria, that Putin was more than happy to fill. Maybe he'd like to occupy Afghanistan again?  : ).

Which of course isn't what's happening at all. The Syria retreat doesn't compensate for the worldwide net increase of troops. Looking at the map of US military bases in the middle east and around the world is quite astonishing.

 

[dogears]

Which of course isn't what's happening at all. The Syria retreat doesn't compensate for the worldwide net increase of troops. Looking at the map of US military bases in the middle east and around the world is quite astonishing.

Would you rather the global order be maintained by anyone else?

Of all nations perhaps Germany or China (with Japan close by) benefit the most from the global order maintained by the US Navy.

Countries which literally live and die by global trade complaining about US forces positioned in strategic trade routes is like a person who’s falling complaining about his parachute.

Or perhaps we should return to the pre-world war order, where the raw materials and resources countries required were obtained through colonial and military conquest instead of a global commodity market?

 

[iomegaman]

Term fucking limits for the entire LOT of them...all of them...Supremes/Congress/Senate/Dept. Heads/all the way down...

Politics SHOULD NEVER BE A CAREER OPTION...it might make a resume bullet point, but a career in it is EXACTLY the problem...

If you are not worried about keeping your job (because you only get____number of years) then doing the right thing can become the incentive...

There's really no way to get the big money out of politics now, the only way to make a gradual dent is to incentivize politicians on a different value system...what is their "legacy" and how does that impact the next job they get, and under no circumstances whatsoever should a former politician become a lobbyist...should be a federal crime to even apply for the job...that won't stop it, but it might slow it down a bit...

 

[living sounds]

Term f**king limits for the entire LOT of them...all of them...Supremes/Congress/Senate/Dept. Heads/all the way down...

Politics SHOULD NEVER BE A CAREER OPTION...it might make a resume bullet point, but a career in it is EXACTLY the problem...

If you are not worried about keeping your job (because you only get____number of years) then doing the right thing can become the incentive...

There's really no way to get the big money out of politics now, the only way to make a gradual dent is to incentivize politicians on a different value system...what is their "legacy" and how does that impact the next job they get, and under no circumstances whatsoever should a former politician become a lobbyist...should be a federal crime to even apply for the job...that won't stop it, but it might slow it down a bit...

Term limits for judges are absolutely a good idea. And judges should be selected based on merit and probably by experts (like a bar association).

But politicians? Government needs to be a counterweight against narrow economic interests, and it takes years or even decades to build up the necessary network.

Money can be kept out of politics (many western countries are pretty good at that) and elections can be well regulated and the process fair and transparent. This is not much of a problem in western/northern Europe, for example.

 

[dogears]

I’d love to see blockchain utilized for voting.

 

[leadpoisoning]

I was referring more to the use of the term used by Georges Monbiot - see also:
https://www.theguardian.com/books/2016/apr/15/neoliberalism-ideology-problem-george-monbiot

there are certainly correlations to the 'neoconservative' mode but maybe for different reasons. What i was talking about was the shift - specifically in america and the UK of what WAS the grass roots 'left' into a 'corporate' liberalism likely formed by the powers of advertising and the influence of wall street etc. So the former parties (again in north america and the UK mostly) which were previously staunchly 'left' (democratic party in the US, Labour in the UK, NDP in Canada) now tend to be centrist or even more to the right of that. I do not think the left/right political scale is any less appropriate than it used to be but I think those who have been travelling to the right along it now prefer not to have this acknowledged and therefore tend to resist such classifications ... for obvious reasons

"Neoliberal" is a term reserved for post-New-Deal-era proponents of laissez-faire capitalism.

I think what you mean are "Neoconservatives", which is the most adequate term for the pro-interventionist "liberal hawks".

This is nothing new at all, Franklin D. Roosevelt, Harry S. Truman, John F. Kennedy and Lyndon B. Johnson all were described as liberal haws.

"Left" and "right" may be used to describe social liberalism vs authoritarianism or economic pro-regulation leftism vs. pro-market rightism.

There is, of course, the pacifist strand on the left and its jingoist antagonist on the right.

It is not much disputed that there has been a pro-market anti-regulation anti-tax anti-interventionist (economically) wave from the late 70s well into the 21st century. Since these policies cause long-term instability due to their tendency to increase inequality and social disruption, especially in combination with globalization and technological innovations, momentum has been building for the pendulum to swing back to the left.

Take a look at the platforms of Democratic presedential candidates like Bernie Sanders or Elisabeth Warren, they are quite obviously to the left of the "third way" Democrats (or social democrats in Europe).

In the US this shift happened before (FDR), and - if democracy is allowed to run its course - is poised to be happen again.

 

[JohnRoberts]

Term f**king limits for the entire LOT of them...all of them...Supremes/Congress/Senate/Dept. Heads/all the way down...

Politics SHOULD NEVER BE A CAREER OPTION...it might make a resume bullet point, but a career in it is EXACTLY the problem...

If you are not worried about keeping your job (because you only get____number of years) then doing the right thing can become the incentive...

There's really no way to get the big money out of politics now, the only way to make a gradual dent is to incentivize politicians on a different value system...what is their "legacy" and how does that impact the next job they get, and under no circumstances whatsoever should a former politician become a lobbyist...should be a federal crime to even apply for the job...that won't stop it, but it might slow it down a bit...

Oops we kind of agree...  8)

Not sure term limits is the fix, but yes there is a problem.  Maybe pay them 100x more, or pay them zero... both have merits.

The obvious way to get big money out of politics is shrink BIG government, not grow it larger (also easier said than done.)

JR

PS: For an obscure tidbit, one of the early amendments that was never approved expanded the number of representatives. Instead of the 400 odd (some very odd) representatives now, we would have 6,000 or more. This would reduce the handle of their budget/spending per representative but we would probably still end up with huge individual budget items.

 

[cyrano]

Consider a base democracy from the ground up.

People elect local govt, from the street they live in, up. Each level has a say who goes up to the next level.

Forget kings, emperor's and presidents. There's no real need to have one person at the top.

Qt the very least, it leads to voting for people you know personally and not some suit with a propaganda machine.

 

[dogears]

Consider a base democracy from the ground up.

People elect local govt, from the street they live in, up. Each level has a say who goes up to the next level.

Forget kings, emperor's and presidents. There's no real need to have one person at the top.

Qt the very least, it leads to voting for people you know personally and not some suit with a propaganda machine.

It's almost like you're describing federalism like what we used to have in this country.  ;D

I disagree with the "no need for someone at the top" though. We have a laboratory of how to organize: the free market. This, combined with the freedom individuals enjoy to make organizations as they see fit has given us many lifetimes of trial and error. As humans, collectively, we've sort of landed on the board of directors plus CEO model as the optimum arrangement for management of large systems.

Edit to say: You could also be describing the party system used in Soviet Russia and china today, I suppose.  ;D ;D ;D

 

[cyrano]

Almost, but not quite...