If recent polling data is any suggestion of what may occur on election day, then I would be forced to say that the United States is undergoing a massive political transformation. With no toss-up states, Obama has a 353-185 lead in the electoral college. In order to lose, the Obama-Biden ticket would have to drop at least one state it currently has a greater than 5% lead in as well as losing every other state still up for grabs. A supermajority is becoming an increased possibility in the Senate, with at least six to nine pickups looking likely for the Democratic party. Democrats are also looking at a possible fifty-seat swing of power in the House, with between twenty and twenty-five Republican seats being strongly contested.
Eight years of neo-conservativism in the White House is demonstrably a complete failure. From the disastrous war in Iraq to, what some writers have dubbed, an “economic 9/11” on Wall Street, Americans have started to tap into their inner empiricist. You don’t need a political science degree to know American legitimacy is in the basement and you don’t need an M.B.A to know that it’s bad when the Dow Jones drops 777 points in one day. These simple facts are being translated into very real polling data, like the one conducted earlier this week by CNN/Time/ORC, which cataloged the lowest approval ratings for the President (22%) and the Congress (15%) in the history of the poll.
The last time that a Presidential approval rating was this bad, Harry S Truman was running the country into the ground during the Korean War in 1952. Should it really be surprising that when the conservative vision of a 1950’s utopia was replicated, it failed just like it did the first time? It’s called “neo-conservativism” for a reason – it’s been tried before. A socially reactionary agenda coupled with an imperialist war abroad – am I talking about Korea and the misogynist 1950’s or Iraq and the homophobic 2000’s? It’s gotten hard to tell. Hopefully, Americans have realized that we cannot keep riding the wave of power that filled the United States after World War II, demanding this and that of the world. Our hegemonic glee has spread to every aspect of American society, whether we’re waving flags or gambling billions on absurdly dangerous derivatives or engaging in cowboy diplomacy, and it has finally – finally – come back to bite us.
Before you say that I’m acting more anti-American than an ex-patriot living in Paris, let me say this: It’s a good thing. People need to see policy options fail before they can truly move past them. From Truman to Nixon to Ford to Reagan to Bush to Bush, the last forty-eight years have been dominated by conservative presidencies and congresses. In that time, the United States has been engaged in at least eight major military conflicts including Beirut, Nicaragua, and Panama. We’ve grown highly dependent on foreign energy sources, importing the highest rate of goods in the world without matching exports. We’ve been become self-obsessed and provincial. Saying that someone is from another country is almost universally a mild-mannered insult, sparing only Britain. We proposed an amendment to ban gay marriage, while fighting two wars abroad. Unilateral ‘democracy-building’ is a Pyrrhic victory at best, a devastating loss at worst. We’ve seen it happen for a long time. People seem to be aware that it doesn’t work.
I think – maybe – things are finally going to change. The stunt-driven nature of the McCain campaign has put the desperation of the Republican party on national display, as the remnants of its philosophies are torn to the ground. What does social conservatism and American exceptionalism get you? An experienced senator, whose war-obsessed mind has made him confrontational and unpredictable, and a young, attractive robot, who is well programmed by the ideals of conservative thought and a blind ambition for power. What does the alternative provide? An inexperienced senator, who is a former-editor of the Harvard Law Review, a former law professor from the University of Chicago, and an eloquent spokesman of pragmatic politics. His running mate is a long-time senator, who is a populist orator with perhaps the most definitive foreign policy record of his generation.
Is Senator Barack Obama naive? Maybe. But, how could he not be – the word ‘experience’ is tantamount to saying that you were part of the ‘same administration’ that has held the majority of power since World War II. I’m not sure that ‘experience’ is automatically a qualification any more. There has to be foresight to accompany that experience, because otherwise you are always looking to the past, to history. People say that history is doomed to repeat itself if you forget it, but that’s not always accurate. It should be – history is doomed to repeat itself, if you only use the knowledge of it to justify standing still. The only way that populations can solve problems is by constantly solving them – the conservative paradigm stopped solving problems and it just created more. It seemed like we could hold that same stance, riding the legitimacy explosion of the United Stated coming out of World War II. We saved the world from evil. We got to define all of the institutions of the global era – the IMF, the World Bank, the UN, everything.
But then, globalization happened. All the talk of cosmopolitanism coupled with the “I vote fiscally conservative” rhetoric couldn’t hack it anymore. The global marketplace reared its head and started snapping back at American power. We probably could have maintained it, if we hadn’t acted so poorly with the reins of global governance. But, we shouldn’t be too surprised about it, as we’re just part of a long chain of countries who fell from dominance over the last few thousand years. The Egyptians, the Greeks, the Romans, the Persians, the Mongols, the Chinese, the British, the French, the Germans, the Italians, the Russians. They’ve all fallen – but they were never defined by the fall. They’ve always been defined by how they got back up. So, the question is – how will America get back up?
If Senator McCain is elected, our fate may well be decided negatively. Falling from power while kicking and screaming, clawing at the world by threatening everyone he meets, will only ensure that we will have more work to do later. McCain’s positions during the debate on Iran, North Korea, Syria, and Russia would have us at the brink of war all over the world. He still thinks that America can either yell at or ignore every other country on the planet. He hasn’t learned from his mistakes. Just look at his answer to Jim Lehrer’s question, “What have you learned from the Iraq War?” McCain answered as if he was reenacting a White House press conference during Vietnam. “We are winning!” “The surge worked!” “You don’t understand the difference between tactics and strategy!” Was that Robert McNamara or Richard Nixon talking? McCain’s stance on the economy was not much better. He acted like the Congress was a naughty teenager who stole daddy’s credit card and he was going “cut spending”/not give any more allowance until Billy worked off the debt. Meanwhile, the opportunity costs of Iraq are raging into the trillions. Did anyone else notice that McCain didn’t really understand the difference between millions and billions during the first debate? He kept deriding Obama for authorizing $813 million dollars on social welfare programs, when Obama pointed out the billions of dollars being pumped into Iraq each month. It’s a “B” John, like in the phrase ” ‘B’ecause you continue to support American exceptionalism, I will continue to campaign against you.”
America needs to give Barack Obama the chance to do otherwise. I know that he is not a lifetime politician and I know he doesn’t have the intense swagger of a military man, but the best person you can put into power in our time of shifting paradigms, is someone pragmatic and uplifting. Look at FDR and Lincoln and Wilson. Obama knows it – he tried to bring it up on a few occasions during the first debate. He drew the obvious distinction between himself and his opponent; McCain was the old imperialist, Obama was the new international lawyer. Republicans have derided Obama for being a celebrity. It’s funny, because Americans are showing, for a change, that they don’t just love people who are famous for being famous – they are genuinely interested in a man who has valuable ideas. That is the greatest paradigm shift that any population can have. Hopefully, that will be the American paradigm shift of the 21st century.
wow…now with polls showing a strong lead, all we have to worry about it voting corruption, dumping registered voters, hacked machines, ridiculous wait times, misleading ballots and all the other ways the gop tries to steal elections
I think this is the fourth consecutive article in which you’ve used the word ‘tantamount’.
You really enjoy that word.
You mention this 21st century paradigm shift from point A. (neo conservatism) to point B. )The future?) And I hate to make this allusion, but it has the characterists of Sarah Palins’ speech last night–not a lot of concrete focus on the question. It focuses more on where the country is going from and less on where the country is going. There is certainly going to be a shift, but that occurs with any new presidential change….
And shift never takes the whole political system. Maybe you’re saying that neo-conservatism is transforming? or is dying? I’m not quite sure. Issues, ideas, idelogies have reached a point where they split on party lines so a “shift” cannot explain the whole, just some of its parts.
Re: nobutta
I cannot see for one second how what I wrote above in any way whatsoever resembles Sarah Palin’s speech last night. You say that I don’t have “a lot of concrete focus on the question.” That’s interesting, because I wasn’t aware there was a question being asked at all – I thought I was writing an article at my own prompting. If, by your comparison, you mean to say that you agree with Sarah Palin’s criticism of Joe Biden last night for “finger pointing”, then I will respond as Biden did – “history is prologue.” You have to know where you’re coming from to figure out where you’re going. Otherwise, you’re just lost.
To say that the shift we are undergoing right now happens with “any presidential change” is precisely ignorant of the history I want to invoke. We are coming from a governmental paradigm defined by excesses of power, zero accountability, and a total lack of transparency. Eight years of Rove-style politics has left people so disillusioned that they simply do not trust the Congress or the President. They couldn’t even convince the American people to accept an almost universally lauded economic bailout.
Neoconservativism is on its death bed and its our job to finally pull the plug in this election. As I list above, its hawkishness, bigotry, exceptionalism, provincialism, and unilateral interventionism are all philosophically unjustified and empirical disasters. Now that the American people have seen the ramifications of neoconservative politics, hopefully they will finally push it out the door for good. That shift may not encompass the “entire political system”, but its certainly going to carry a large part of congressional and presidential power with it. Where is it going? Like I said, its moving away from imperialists like McCain to international lawyers like Obama. Just look at their credentials, it’s a clear difference. And it’s not just about party lines – this election could demonstrate an entire mentality shift of the American people towards liberalism and a permanent move away from social conservatism. Surely, there will still be some red states, but the “moral majority” is on its way out. What does that entail? People finally valuing good ideas and leadership, not spin and puppets. That is the paradigm shift I hope to see in the United States this election.
If you need any further proof that a paradigm shift is nearing completion, look at the electoral maps in presidential elections over the last 50 years. The presidential election is an excellent indicator of the majority ideological stance. Clinton was the beginning of the end of social conservatism in this country, as he deftly narrated a liberal vision of America. His presidency forced Republicans to redefine themselves with a neoconservative ideology – still socially conservative, but with a focus on being “compassionate”. If you remember, that’s how Bush II got elected the first time around. It wasn’t really all that different than the conservatism of Nixon, Ford, Reagan, and Bush, but it was an attempt at a more sensitive version, because they saw they were losing ground fast. That’s why someone like Rove became necessary – the perfect amoral strategist. But, you can only win a couple of elections by starting a culture war; after that, people start to figure it out.
The Bush II White House probably was the last empirical test of traditional conservatism in this country. 9/11 was its biggest pop quiz and they failed it, very badly. They made Iraq into the new Vietnam, an unnecessary war complete with a concerted attempt at otherization without justification. Sure, we have the weapons technology now to avoid anything like Vietnam-level casualties or a draft, but the sentiment/worldview underlying it is very much the same. Democracy-building is just the new name for “fighting communists”, but now the communists are terrorists. It’s all just name substitution for the traditional GOP ideologue.
Now that we have an economy to match, people that were holdovers for the old paradigm are sick and tired of being told they are stupid by those in charge. The GOP is about to give the Democrats a supermajority in the Senate and a strong majority in the House. The GOP has to substantively redefine itself after this election, or face total obscurity. That’s the shift I’m talking about.
If you want to LITERALLY intrepret the word question. Go ahead. The question I think your article implicity asks is where is the entire country headed? and your answer is towards “international law and liberalism.” (both false by the way)
First off you should read Robert Kagan’s power and weakness article. Europe is all about instituionalization and international laws, not America. And the fact that you characteirze Obama as such is also completley misguided.
Second, I am not sure how you can say neoconservatism is dead when Palin and McCain during the speeches quoted Reagan and still promote his beliefs and ideology.
Three: Yes. Each presdient brings there own philosophy, doctrine, and legacy. No president carries out the bidding of his predessor. Just take a couple of examples (Herbert Hoover vs. FDR) (William Henry Harrison vs. Andrew Jackson) (Bill clinton vs. George Bush) (THOMAS JEFFERSON VS. JOHN ADAMS!!!!) The list is roughly 42 long.
Four: Our political system is built off of political factions. Any consensus between the people died when John Adams left office. Their is not going to be such massive shift from neo-conservaitsm to liberalism. The left will stay where they are and so will the right…and to blindly perceive that such a world can and will exist is just naive.
First, international law is the future of governance, it just simply has to be. There are too many global problems that cannot be solved on the stage of the individual state – global warming, overfishing, nuclear proliferation, Islamic terrorism, etc. It is true that Europeans have effectively institutionalized power and law both domestically and internationally, while Americans have not had that priority. However, saying, “that’s how it has been” is not an argument for “what will be”. I attempt to show evidence to the contrary.
I’m interested to hear how you know for a fact international law and liberalism are not on the way. I’d love to meet this oracle you call Robert Kagan. Funny fact about Kagan – he’s a neoconservative who lives in Brussels, Belgium. How funny that the neo-con you invoke to say that liberalism and international law is dead lives in the international law capital of the world. It’s also terribly shocking that a neo-con would phrase the world in terms of “power” and “weakness”. Oh wait, that’s how they view everything – as a game of relative power politics. Whether it’s an election, congressional power-sharing, or international politics, that could be the defining characteristic of neoconservatives. It is also precisely why they are on the way out – the time for games is over.
As for characterizing Obama an international lawyer, how else could you? He is a lawyer by trade and education, with an extremely pragmatic political mindset. He values legal solutions over normative solutions. He wants to engage in direct diplomacy with adversaries to reach compromises.
Second, the fact that McCain and Palin are still espousing the last, pathetic hopes of this mentality only fuels my contentions. Look at what the GOP has become: an angry old war veteran and someone who cannot string consecutive thoughts together.
Third, I wasn’t saying that presidents aren’t different people. Clearly they all have nuanced difference and I wasn’t saying they “carry out the bidding of their predecessor”. My point is that there is a serious ideological shift, as empirically evidenced by the electorate, underway in the United States.
Fourth, as glad as I am that you appear to have watched the HBO special on John Adams, that’s not really relevant. Your argument that political stasis between the left and the right is destiny just shows your complete lack of knowledge about history. People change, and so do states. Do you have any idea how many times the definition of the “right” and the “left” has completely changed in the United States? If you want to get historical, collectivist republicanism used to be the radical left (i.e. the French Revolution, the Founding Fathers). The place holders we use in American democracy may stay the same, but the ideas that hold those places do change.
Suggested Reading: Robert Kagan is an internationally renowned journliast. B.A., Yale University; M.P.P., John F. Kennedy School of Government, Harvard University; Ph.D., American University
He’s mentioned and required reading in almost every Poli Sci class I took so I think he’s more credible than you, Joe Blogger.
Other suggested reading: Thomas Hobbes “Leviathan.” The world IS all about power. Power is a zero-sum game. FACT
And Obama is a labor lawyer, not an “internataionl lawyer.” I’m not even sure what that means. He supports the war in Afghanistan and is not about to sit down at the table and have tea with the “axis of evil.”
Where you see causation between the shift in ideology and the neocon philosophy I see correlation and coincidence. Two quite different things.
I did watch John Adams on HBO, but that’s not where I got those facts from. I got it from reading books. And yes, the same left v right partisan philosophy has been going on ACTUALLY for about 200 years. so it is static.
George W. Bush: B.A. Yale, M.B.A. Harvard, President of the USA. Enough said about credentials? Try arguments.
Also, did you really just try to use a three-hundred year old text on the early state to argue about the future of international politics? Hobbes’ Leviathan predates all of the major influences that I am talking about – globalization, international institutions, nationalism, industrialization, modern health care; you know, small things. Furthermore, Hobbes’ argument was that in a world devoid of any legitimate claims to power, anarchy and chaos prevail. Agreed. We are way past that question in the 21st century. The question isn’t: why the state?, it is: what else other than the state? International law is that addition.
As for power, it is only a zero-sum game in the realm of finite resources. Reliance on finite resources are becoming the way of the past. Solar and wind power will take our understanding of the “zero-sum game” and toss it out the window. There is also no zero-sum game between the power relations of people. If I am happy, it does not mean that you are sad. It would suit you to not proclaim every book you were assigned in college is a “fact”, particularly when it’s from 1660.
Second, Obama was a labor lawyer, but he has the worldview of a lawyer in general. His pragmatism has led him to international law and that is where he will stay until a better alternative is brought to his attention. His use of the phrase “axis of evil” was to lure Bush voters. Also, the war in Afghanistan is the only legitimate war we are engaged in and international lawyers are not definitively anti-war. There are just wars in the liberal, internationalist paradigm. As for the right and left, please see above.
You’re both hopelessly wrong:
Nobutta:
First, going to Harvard and Yale qualifies you to be a douche bag but not much else.
Second, Leviathan wasn’t written by God. Hobbes also said life sucks. A lot has changed since then. Also, the idea that ‘power is relative’ assumes that you can understand what power is. Quick answer: you can’t.
Third, Presidents build on what their predecessors have done. The scope of the economic-political environment (that thing you deal with everyday to get paid and live in a society with law and order) is bigger than the presidency. Bill Clinton is much similar to George Bush than Adams was to Jefferson. McCain and Obama are amazingly similar.
Fourth, left and right don’t mean anything anymore. They may exist in an absolute sense but not in any useful way.
Tony:
You’re too caught up in the political atmosphere. McCain and Obama aren’t that different from each other. Look at Paul or Nader’s positions if you want to see a paradigm shift.
Second, neoconservatism is only half the political philosophy: the security half. The economic/political half is called neoliberalism and it’s far more significant. It birthed neoconservatism.
Neoliberalism and neoconservatism have failed as evident by our economy and our war in Iraq. Both of these politicians were supported by the neoliberal/neocon establishment. I certainly haven’t heard anything that indicates that Obama plans to substantially CHANGE the global economic-political system.
The paradigm is shifting, but American political theater, and it’s main political actors, aren’t shifting it.
Re: Walther
Agreed about my temperament, but not about McCain and Obama. Their foreign policies alone, not to mention health care, the environment, social policy, and energy policy, make them very different from one another. You can’t claim that Nader and Paul have a monopoly on political difference. While neoliberalism birthed neoconservatism, I don’t assign greater significance to one or the other. Both comprise our political, economic, and social reality. To say that Obama is a byproduct of those forces is only a partial statement of the facts. He is born of those circumstances, but he is not defined by them. Everything about his campaign has differentiated him from the neoliberal/neocon establishment. Obama does want to substantially change the paradigm, or acknowledge the changed world at least, through vastly different policy options. Maybe he has duped me, but I don’t think so.
To say Obama represents a dramatic move towards openness and international cooperation is an exaggeration. I applaud his willingness to engage in diplomacy, but that is only one part of foreign relations. His record on trade is appalling: he has not fought against barriers to trade and encourages subsidies. For more, see: http://www.freetrade.org/congress?senator=84 .
I hope he will, if elected, take up positions closer to those held by McCain in this regard.
You’re right Leviathan was not written by God, but you and “Tony” are too quick to dismiss generally accepted western philosophers. They’re famous and highly respected for a reason.
And presidents build on the foundation, that puts certain limits on the extent of their capabitlies. But in my opniion, every presdient gets 1 DOCTRINE. and no matter the political environment can enforce that.
By left and right I don’t mean the modern intrepretation–
I mean Left is Whig/modern day democrat/federalist while right is Old school democrat, modern day republican, and Jeffersonian Republican
Re: Dimitar
I went to that website and looked at the specific pieces of legislation that Obama voted against. First of all, the site characterizes trade issues in a ridiculously polarized fashion. There are sometimes intervening factors like immigration policy that would prevent a vote for free trade initiatives, like the worker visa bills he rejected. He voted for a Ban on Mexican Trucking in the US as a matter of narcotrafficking. As for the DR-CAFTA measures he voted against, I’ve read substantial literature saying that CAFTA undermined developing nations at the benefit of the US and was only done to counter European anti-trade barrier initiatives.
On substantive free trade issues, Obama almost always voted for free trade. He voted for Miscellaneous Tariff Reductions and Trade Preference Extensions and for the end of US protections on price-dumping. I think that if you review his votes issue by issue, he is exactly what I said he is. A pragmatist, who rejects an issue only after weighing all considerations. He also comes across as strikingly free trade.
Re: nobutta
It’s really funny that you think I discount Western philosophers, as I have spend the vast majority of my academic life expounding them. Leviathan was a relevant text to political science at the end of the seventeenth century – people have written updates since. You read Hobbes in college because he is an important step in intellectual history, not because he represents the contemporary view of political scientists.
I don’t agree that every president gets one doctrine. Look at FDR – he got the New Deal and Normandy.
The fact that the two parties have changed ideology so many times is precisely my point. It is changing once again. To what? For the GOP, who knows. Probably populism. For the Dems, social liberalism and internationalism, hopefully.
butta:
I try not to dismiss western philosophers, but do think they provide a limited perspective.
If the ‘right’ is modern day Jeffersonian, why do they support government spying and our current monetary policy?
tony:
Vastly different policies? The big national security issues of the day: Georgia into NATO, incursions into Pakistan, Israel, Iran, not closing military bases abroad: they’re the same.
I look forward to seeing the application of Obama’s health care plan. Energy they’re somewhat different (drill baby drill).
Substantial changed to the tax code? Farm subsidies? Privacy? Evaluating the Fed?
Americans, I think, get the president they deserve. Obama is flexible: we can push him towards the changes we want to see, but he won’t get there without substantial effort on our part.
Right. You’re taking an exception to the rule. And you’re implying Bush is stupid. He’s not. He’s a lot craftier than any of us. He’s just a bad leader. So let’s not jump to conclusions.
And all your examples are bogus. I’m talking political power. A more powerful Russia diminishes our power. A more powerful Iran diminshes our influence in the middle east. This is just basic Hobbesian principles. And the premise of his idea is still true today. In the state of nature there is anarchy. Today there is anarchy. (in the sense that there is no absolute rule of law.)
Again with FDR you take an unusual example. And again, you need to take the primary, not the auxillary. President’s DO more than one thing, but when you think abotu a presdient they have one lasting legacy. FDR you think New Deal. When you think Monroe you think claiming our sphere for protection. When you think Polk you think Westward expansion. When you think JFK you think Cold War. When you think Jefferson you think Lousiana purchase. etc. etc.
and you do not understand, parties change names but the principles are the same. Men are fairly simple
Walther:
The right is for small government so was Jefferson. Some of these issues were not present back then. There was no treasury or Bank of the United States. and government spying–sure–jefferson believed in liberty but he also believed that slaves were an “inherited evil” that must be condoned for the stability of the country…so he could easily argue for spying with the same rationale..i mean spying is against Arabs (and they don’t have rights just like slaves)
Correction: For clarity,
“so he could easily argue for spying with the same rationale..i mean spying is against Arabs (and they don’t have rights just like slaves)”
So Jefferson could easily support spying with the same rationale that he did for slaves. He would look at Arabs as a threat to stablity and thus rataionloze that they should not recivie the same rights as citizens.
Re: Walther
I think that Obama and McCain were sort of right on their treatment of Georgia, although definitely in agreement. Pakistani incursions are questionable, I don’t have the intel. Iran is totally different – he advocates direct diplomacy. Israel, they are the same, but who wants to buck the lobby in an election? Obama want to close loopholes in the tax code. Farm subsidies I don’t know that much about. On privacy, Obama wants a repeal of the anti-rights legislation of Bush. On the Fed, who the shit knows what we should do. Besides return to a gold standard, har har har.
The point we are in total agreement on is that we will have the opportunity to push Barack when he is in office. That’s why I like him so much.
Re: Nobutta
First, Bush may not be stupid and he certainly is credentialed. That was the point of my comparison. Kagan is also smart and qualified, but he is wrong. Just like Bush.
Second, Russia and Iran only diminish our power in their expansion if we set up our power to be a zero-sum game with them. As Alexander Wendt famously said, “Anarchy is what states make of it.” In other words, the lack of a governance structure in the global sense, doesn’t mean by definition that the international anarchy is competitive. What about a cooperative anarchy? Why isn’t that possible? Basic Hobbesian principles don’t take any of that into account. What is the “state of nature” anyway? Doesn’t “the nature” of humanity change with the evolution of the socio-political?
Third, my point has nothing to do with the lasting legacies of presidents. The shift I am talking about is among the American people. Moreover, when I think about FDR I think World War II, when I think about JFK I think assassination, and when I think about Jefferson I think about the declaration of independence. There is no one legacy to anything.
Finally, nothing about principles stays the same and nothing about humanity is simple. Your reductionist approach to ideas and people really limits the diversity of life.
Strikingly free trade? Oh please. Obama has been consistently protectionist and has pushed hard for subsidies for his constituents. I applaud that he voted for the reduction of miscellaneous tariffs, but that is the exception, not the rule. Voting for the reduction of worker visas is protectionist. Whether or not you think CAFTA is good for participating countries is a non-sequitur: Obama voted against it. Here is a more recent example: http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/story?id=3070540&page=1 . Is there something I’m missing here? What about the massive and completely irrational farm bill?
What bothers me most about it is that he has assembled a team of very intelligent economists and surely knows the value of free trade. He can do better.
I think that your ABC article, while interesting, falls victim to the idea that election strategies are totally demonstrative of future White House policy. That was written during the primaries and Clinton and Obama didn’t want to lose ground to Edwards on the Big Labor issue.
I don’t think that the specifics of CAFTA are a non-sequitur at all – if the policy harms people, then it is doing the opposite of the goal of the free-market. Right?
I think that he does know the value of free trade, but he also knows that the globalized capital markets can really flip on you quickly. Sometimes competition isn’t the best standard of evaluation, but quality of life.
We’re talking presidential legacies…not memorable ones. So the JFK remark is not really applicable and the Jefferson remark is simple poor attention to detail. He was president in 1801, the consitution was written in 1776.
I don’t think kagan is wrong at all. Like I said before I trust my professors credible decision to include his writing in the syllabus over your non-existant credentials. And further proof, Europe believes in international law. Ever heard of the E.U.? While America completely disregards international law, i.e. the U.N.
There’s a reason that people can learn from history. You know the famous phrase history repeats itself, it’s because people and human nature don’t change. That’s philosophy 101 right there.
There is anarchy because that’s the system we’re in. Bush invaded Iraq because there was no governmance to stop them. There are no over arching rules of engagement. (a la Samuel L. Jackson) Your view of the world is a fairy-tale land. You need to wake up Peter pan.
You appear to be ignoring evidence that is contrary to your view of Obama. I grant you that politicians will pander when running for elections, but his statements are consistent with his voting history. Besides, if you really believe we should discount what politicians say during election seasons, you might want to add a caveat saying that McCain is running for election and this might not represent his views: “McCain’s positions during the debate on Iran, North Korea, Syria, and Russia would have us at the brink of war all over the world… He still thinks that America can either yell at or ignore every other country on the planet. He hasn’t learned from his mistakes. ”
Back to the question of Cafta. Obama has never, to my knowledge, indicated that he voted against Cafta because it hurt developing countries. He did it because he wanted to protect his constituents from competition. See here: http://obama.senate.gov/news/050630-why_i_oppose_cafta/index.php . What’s interesting about the whole statement he put out there is that Obama actually said in one of his autobiographies that Cafta was probably a net plus for the US economy.
Claiming that Obama has been strikingly free trade ignores his voting record and his rhetoric. Further, it hurts your credibility as a commentator. Supporting a candidate doesn’t have to mean defending his every move. It’s okay to say, “Obama has not been as open on free trade as he could have been. I hope he will put govern differently as president than he has as senator.”
As Joe Biden would say, let’s be clear – neoconservatives are the ones who disregard international law and the United Nations. They do so because they are exceptionalists, who think that there are double standards that apply to the US concerning the rules of an international order. For instance, the US consulted the UN on the decision to invade Iraq, but then invaded before the UN voted. They justified a unilateral invasion of Iraq on the grounds of a preemptive strike doctrine, which is ethically frightening. The idea that someone only needs to have the capacity to hurt you to justify you hurting them is nonsense in both macro and micro examples. You wouldn’t severely beat another person up because they owned a baseball bat, would you? In ethical terms, it’s the same thing. State governments are just actors who can make choices about their state’s conduct. Kagan is wrong and there is now lots of empirical evidence that show it. Iraq was a lie and a complete failure. Our economy has fallen apart. Your professors included Kagan in your course reader because he defends an influential view point. Have you ever considered that your professors might be using him as a straw man to tear down? More countries than just Europe believe in international law – the neocons just want to make you think it doesn’t matter. The American commitment to international treaties is embarrassing. We won’t ratify anything that would help shape the international community and bring it away from anarchy. We won’t take part in judicial institutions, designed to bring justice to the world, because we want to get away with everything. They put glaring exceptions into the International Criminal Court for the United states and we STILL wouldn’t sign it. The Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty on nuclear weapons is maybe the worst one we haven’t ratified. We have the pleasant distinction of heading up a group that includes China, North Korea, and Pakistan. There were over 180 signatories and 145 ratifications of the treaty worldwide. If the US signed it, it would happen. The list goes on and on. Kyoto, Landmines, the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty, etc.
History repeats itself, because people (don’t/cannot) change. You say it’s “cannot”, I say it’s “don’t”. In my opinion, there is nothing permanent or fixed about the way people act at one moment in time. Only the replication of those actions ensures their replication. If I steal something, it’s because I choose to do so, and not because I couldn’t help it. People can always learn to be better and history clearly shows that they have, time and time again. Do you think that people around 0 BC acted anything nearly as civilized as people do now? And that’s only two thousand years. That’s an instant. If anything, people are capable of change at a rate faster than any intelligence in the known universe. You might say that people are biologically defined and that our behaviors are instinctively engraved. I think that some behaviors are more prone because of our genetic code, but those same genes also provide the basis for altering those codes at an extremely fast rate. DNA is highly reactive stuff and so are people. Anyone can fulfill the basic ethical responsibility to seek non-domination over other people. It’s about education and making a choice. That’s why “human nature” is a historical illusion. The nature of people is just the reflection of the rules of society. People can override the use of unjust violence, whether the solution is psychological or structural. My view of the world is seemingly better informed, the only one who needs to wake up is you.
Re: Dimitar
Haha I think you’re judging me a little too harshly by my words. If I ignore something then I am probably ignorant of it, to be honest with you. I am voting for Obama for his diplomatic foreign policy, his energy independence policy, for not having McCain’s health care plan, and for being pragmatic and open-minded. I didn’t get onto his boat by way of the free trade debate.
That said, I understand the distinction between Obama’s voting record and his stance on some free trade issues. I said that he was strikingly free trade, without the caveat, “considering his ties to Big Labor.” I think that he consistently voted for overall rule improvements to enable free trade, he certainly isn’t trying to cripple it. I think that he is just in favor of leaving a few barriers up while the hiccups of globalization are worked out.
When did this blog become such a liberal battle ground of one sided propaganda?
Bush ’08
And I didn’t realize colleges gave multiple degree in philosophy, history, political science, foreign affairs, psychology, and last but not least biology!
Listen, next time you look at the window realize that you’re not living in a Brave New World…or tell the Giver I say hi.
Nobutta,
(a) Learn the usage of ‘there’ vs. ‘their’. I’ll give you an example of each: I’m going there; This is their plan.
It’s easy. I promise.
(b) Your spell check must be ‘non-existant’ because that’s not a word. It’s ‘non-existent’ and, I assure you, Anthony has a record of academic excellence at a top-tier university. His credentials, if that’s what we’re arguing about, are more than sufficient to argue from an integrated perspective (social, political, historical, philosophical, biological, etc.).
I once witnessed a visiting political science professor tell Anthony that his paper was ‘The best paper he’s ever read’. He’s a smart guy with an unsurpassed intellectual curiosity that, apparently, you lack.
(c) I’m glad you’ve taken IR 101. Now it’s time to move on to examine other facets of IR. It sounds like you’ve got realism and neo-realism down. Now you can move on to neoliberal institutionalism, structuralism, post-structuralism, social constructivism, etc. (and the tens of other approaches to international behavior and cooperation out there).
Hint: The world is about more than just power.
Suggested Reading for a Different Perspective:
Wendt, Alexander
Barnett, Michael
Finnemore, Martha
Hurd, Ian
Wight, Colin
Ruggie, John
Bull, Hedley
Expand your horizon. If you think you know, you’ve made a mistake. We (all of us) know nothing. We can only try to understand. That’s what this site is about.
Anthony,
Thanks for the clarification. I apologize if I came across as harsh.
Daedalus,
Wasn’t it you who said, “We prefer constructive debate, not snide mockery…”? You should apologize to nobutta for points a) and b). You could have made your points without them.
I disagree, the world is all about power.
Scooped by the Times…
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/06/us/politics/06caucus.html?_r=1&oref=slogin
David Brooks breaks it down:
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/21/opinion/21brooks.html?_r=1&hp&oref=slogin