Foreign Policy Journal: Opinion: Paul Craig Roberts: The Neoconservative Threat to International Order

Foreign Policy Journal: Opinion: Paul Craig Roberts: The Neoconservative Threat to International Order

This post was originally posted at The New Democrat on WordPress

This is going to sound somewhat partisan at least from a Neoconservative’s perspective and if that is the case you’re more than welcome to way in on this and attempt to contradict me. But then I’ll get to Europe where I believe there is a lot of common ground on both the Left and Right when it comes to foreign policy and national security.

The reason why we are dealing with all of these independent terrorists groups now that are free to flow everywhere in Africa, the Middle East and Eurasia is because of the 2003 War in Iraq. ISIS didn’t exist pre-Iraq and yes the War in Afghanistan was something we had to do because the Taliban in Afghanistan were subsidizing and protecting the terrorists who were responsible for 9/11. And even though it has taken a long time thanks to the War in Iraq and Afghan corruption that mission is starting to finally pay off. As that country is finally stabilizing and their economy is finally moving.

The Middle East was a fairly stable area pre-War in Iraq. And as horrible as the Saddam Regime was there and most people including myself are glad he’s no longer running that country and even dead, you didn’t have terrorists in Iraq killing Americans before the war. And you didn’t have terrorists occupying Northern Iraq and Northern Syria. Which would be ISIS today because the central government’s in both countries were strong enough to secure their countries even if they were horrible to their people.

You also didn’t have a jealous Vladimir Putin as President of Russia thinking who needed to make his own power play because of what America was doing to countries that were close to Russia. Part of President Putin’s justification for invading Ukraine has been that he doesn’t believe America should be the sole power in the world that can act unilaterally even in their own interests. The world was a much safer place in 2002 pre-Iraq when our main security threat was Al-Qaeda, a nuclear armed North Korea that still can’t even feed its people. And a potential terrorist state in Iran getting nuclear weapons.

Now where there I believe there is bipartisan agreement, lets look at Europe. Part of the rise of Russia has to do with the fall, or at least steep decline in Europe. Where only Germany as far as a large country in Europe has a healthy economy. But Europe is falling in population and young people and gaining in older people. Because they don’t take in many immigrants each year unlike America and as a result their social democratic economic systems are collapsing. Britain, France, Spain, Italy and Greece all drowning in high debt, and deficits, unemployment. Greece having to take a bailout package that is actually larger than their national economy to stay afloat. And have just elected a new socialist government that’s against austerity.

But if that is not bad enough for Europe, as their populations and economies continue to decline, so does their militaries. Where NATO is essentially just made up of America now as far as real military threat. And to a certain degree Britain, France and Germany to some extent. Europe is more than capable of responding to Russia in any way themselves at least as far as resources, but has chosen not to. Wouldn’t be great to go back to 2002 and far as the security situations for the Western world, but subtract George W. Bush for Al Gore and only be dealing with Afghanistan right now. But we of course can’t go back in time.

Read Full Post »

The Dish: Andrew Sullivan- Why Am I Moving Left?

Classical Conservative

Source: This piece was originally posted at The New Democrat

Whatever Andrew Sullivan is calling himself these days, I still consider him to be a Conservative. Conservative Libertarian even if that makes you feel better. Because similar to Barry Goldwater it is not that conservatism has changed, but similar to liberalism it is the people who call themselves Conservatives or Liberals that has changed. Using the old labels and throwing out the classical ideology and putting in something that is more comfortable with their ideological perspective.

Today’s Conservative is someone who’s supposed to believe that the Federal Government should decide who can and can’t marry.

That deficits and debt doesn’t matter except when there is a Democratic administration.

That tax cuts automatically pay for itself.

That America can afford to and must police the world.

Security before liberty.

That expanding government into the economy is a good thing if it is done with private market principles.

The Second Amendment is not only absolute, but the only absolute Constitutional Amendment that we have. Meaning it isn’t subjected to any form of regulation.

That there’s so such thing as waste in the Defense Department. Even though it is a government agency run by bureaucrats. And no limits to what America can spend on defense.

Corporation’s are people.

Andrew Sullivan’s politics hasn’t changed. He believes the same things that he did probably twenty years ago. But what has changed is the Republican Party and the broader American Right. To the point that Sullivan looks moderate to liberal or libertarian by comparison. But conservatism today is what it was when Barry Goldwater put it on the map in 1964. That big government is government that interferes in the economic and personal affairs of Americans. Whether it is taxing a lot of their money from them to spend on their behalf. Or trying to run their personal lives for them.

The modern rightist or Republican or what I call rabid partisans on the right do not resemble what it means to be a Conservative. Because as much as they may talk about how much they love the Constitution they spend as much time trying to change it. Instead of being about conserving individual freedom both economic and personal. Limited government, that government closest to home is the best government. Defend America first with a limited foreign policy. Not try to police the world ourselves. And keeping spending down so we don’t rack up large deficits and debt.

The rabid partisan is against Barack Obama no matter what even if they are actually in favor of it. Instead of fixing problems looking to blame President Obama for everything that has happened since the Earth was created. It is not that conservatism has changed, but the far-right that used to be so small in the Republican Party that they looked like a group of people who want to outlaw eating meat. Where today they have enough power to decide if the Republican Party can win elections or not. Sullivan is still Sullivan, but his party has changed.

Read Full Post »

National Post: Opinion: F.H. Buckley: Canadian Conservatives Shouldn’t Look South For Right-Wing Inspiration

THE NATIONAL POST: OPINION: F.H. BUCKLEY: CANADIAN CONSERVATIVES SHOULD STOP LOOKING TO THE UNITED STATES FOR RIGHT-WING INSPIRATIONFULLCOMMENT.NATIONALPOST.COM

PM Stephen Harper & PM Benjamin Netanyahu

The only thing I agree with F.H. Buckley in his piece comparing Canadian Conservatives with American Conservatives is that “Canada shouldn’t look South for right-wing inspiration”. For obvious reasons I believe, but a big one being that a Canadian Conservative is probably to the left of a American Center-Left Liberal Democrat. Canadian Conservatives look more like FDR Progressives than Goldwater Conservatives.

To risk stating the obvious Canadian conservatism even looks different from American conservatism even in the classical conservative sense like Barry Goldwater or Bill Buckley, or today with Senator Rand Paul. So so-called religious conservatism or religious conservatives who look like theocrats to most of the rest of the world would never fly politically to a Canadian country that if anything is more secular than America and if anything believes in a bigger separation of church and state than Americans as a whole outside of our Bible Belt.

Canadian Conservatives to me at least represent the best form of a right-wing movement perhaps in the Western world. Because as much as Canada gets stereotyped as a big government socialist state it really isn’t. Their Federal Government and they do have a Federal system spends less of their country’s Gross Domestic Product than we do. And they tax business less than America does. And they do believe in fiscal responsibility and fiscal conservatism more than American so-called Conservatives. At least in the sense of not taxing and spending and running up big debts and deficits annually. And take a conservative fiscal look across their Federal budget including their defense budget more than American so-called Conservatives do.

There’s really nothing wrong with the Canadian right-wing at least as I see it as an American. They have true Conservatives up there who believe in good government. But part of good government is limited government since there is a limit to the good that government can do for people especially if people aren’t willing to do everything for themselves. And Canada should simply just focus on what works in Canada. As Americans hopefully will get back to what works in America.

Read Full Post »

CNN: Crossfire- Bernie Sanders vs Lindsey Graham: ObamaCare Debate

Source:CNN– Lindsay Graham and Bernie Sanders cross-firing on CNN.

“Sens. Bernie Sanders and Lindsey Graham sit down with CNN hosts Van Jones and Newt Gingrich to discuss the Affordable Care Act.”

From Senator Bernie Sanders

“CNN’s Crossfire: U.S. Senators Bernie Sanders & Lindsey Graham: On ObamaCare & Will The Federal Government Shutdown”

Source:CNN– Senators Bernie Sanders and Lindsay Graham, cross-firing on CNN.

From Mox News

Republicans would have credibility on healthcare (meaning the Affordable Care Act or ObamaCare) if they had their own healthcare reform plan to reform a healthcare system that they admitted like Newt Gingrich, needed to be reformed before the ACA was passed by Congress in 2010.

What Republicans in and out of Congress are doing instead, is saying is that we should repeal the ACA and go back to the status-quo, when it comes to healthcare a system that most of the country including the Republican Party said didn’t work very well, with people being denied health insurance because:

They needed it

Or had a pre-existing-condition

Or run up healthcare bills pass a certain cap even if they were still able to pay for their health insurance.

Or being forced to pay for others healthcare because people could get their own healthcare at the emergency room, even if it wasn’t an emergency which would be free for them but where anyone else with health insurance has to pay for someone else’s healthcare because they aren’t responsible enough to pay for their own health insurance.

Read Full Post »

CNN: Crossfire- Cornel West: Cornel West vs Bill Kristol- Socialism vs Neoconservatism

Source:Cornel West– Democratic Socialist vs Neoconservative.

Cornel West: “Neo-Liberalism Goes Hand in Hand With Neo-Conservatism- Privatize, Militarize, Support Big Banks”

From Cornel West 

“Crossfire (9/23/13) – Van Jones and S.E. Cupp discuss reform or repeal of Obamacare with Dr. Cornel West and The Weekly Standard’s Bill Kristol.”

Source:Rebuild The Dream– Neoconservative vs Democratic Socialist.

From Rebuild The Dream

Cornell West is certainly not a Neoliberal (the real Liberals) but a dedicated Leftist and even a Democratic-Socialist. Whose probably further to the left of Senator Bernie Sanders whose the only official Socialist in the United States Congress.

And Bill Kristol I believe you could easily label him as a Neoconservative in his ideological thinking, but more of an establishment Republican in the sense that he doesn’t expect national Republicans to think exactly like. Him and perhaps more of an inclusive Republican.

My main issue with Professor West is that when he talks about what je calls neoliberalism (the real liberalism) he’s actually talking about Liberalism because he believes that anyone on the Left should essentially be a Socialist whose against privatization, private schools, big national banks, private health care, and health insurance. That government needs to be running all of these social services for the people. And that anyone on the Left who isn’t against private business and private corporations and isn’t as far to the Left as he is a Democratic Socialist. Which is very hard to get to the Left of and still be a Democrat.

The Cornel West’s of the world believe you are weak and not a true Leftist when the fact is liberalism is about protecting people’s freedom. And individual rights, not trying to run their lives for them and for people to be able to run their ow life and not be dependent on government for everything, they need a certain amount of economic as well as personal freedom to make that happen for themselves.

Read Full Post »

PBS Newshour: Gwen Ifill Interviewing Senator John McCain- ‘Dealmaking in Congress, Future of GOP’

Source:PBS NewsHour– U.S. Senator John McCain (Republican, Arizona) talking to PBS News anchor Gwen Ifill.

“The Public Broadcasting Service (PBS) is an American public broadcaster and television program distributor[6] based in Arlington, Virginia. It is a publicly funded[7] nonprofit organization and the most prominent provider of educational programming to public television stations in the United States, distributing series such as American Experience, America’s Test Kitchen, Antiques Roadshow, Arthur, Barney & Friends, Between the Lions, Cyberchase, Clifford the Big Red Dog, Downton Abbey, Wild Kratts, Finding Your Roots, Frontline, The Magic School Bus, The Kidsongs Television Show, Masterpiece Theater, Mister Rogers’ Neighborhood, Nature, Nature Cat, Nova, PBS NewsHour, Peg + Cat, Reading Rainbow, Sesame Street, Teletubbies, Keeping up Appearances, and This Old House.[8]

PBS is funded by a combination of member station dues, the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, National Datacast, pledge drives, and donations from both private foundations and individual citizens. All proposed funding for programming is subject to a set of standards to ensure the program is free of influence from the funding source.[9] PBS has over 350 member television stations, many owned by educational institutions, nonprofit groups both independent or affiliated with one particular local public school district or collegiate educational institution, or entities owned by or related to state government.”

From Wikipedia

“With Congress divided by partisanship, Sen. John McCain has stepped up as a dealmaker between Democrats and Republicans in order to make progress and avoid political showdowns on important legislation. Gwen Ifill talks to the Arizona Republican about his role as a mediator between Republicans and the Obama administration.”

From the PBS NewsHour 

Senator John McCain is not the Republican maverick in Congress, because he’s an Arizona cowboy or he use to be an actors who played cowboys in Hollywood. He’s called the maverick in the Republican Party (at least in Congress) because he’s there to get things done, even if that means working with people who generally disagree with him, including Republicans who don’t always agree with him, like his own Republican Leader in the Senate Mitch McConnell. Or working with Senators Chuck Schumer and Pat Leahy on immigration reform.

And the right-wing (if not the Far-Right) of the Republican Party hates Senator McCain, not just because of where he’s on the issues, but because he works with Democrats, that the Far-Right views as nothing but devils in America who are Un-American and if anything should be in prison right now, not serving in the U.S. Congress.

Read Full Post »

New York Times: Ross Douthat- ‘The Obama Era, Brought to You by the Iraq War’

Source:New York Times– “An antiwar protest in Washington in 2007. The war divided the left but ultimately energized it.Credit…Jim Bourg/Reuters” Also from the New York Times.

Source:The Daily Times

“WHEN prominent people in Washington spend an anniversary apologizing for being catastrophically, unforgivably wrong about a decade-old decision, you might expect that the decision in question had delivered their party to disaster or defeat. But last week’s many Iraq war mea culpas were rich in irony: one by one, prominent liberals lined up to apologize for supporting a war that’s responsible for liberalism’s current political and cultural ascendance.
History is too contingent to say that had there been no Iraq invasion in 2003, there would be no Democratic majority in 2012. (It’s easy enough to imagine counterfactuals that might have put Hillary Clinton in the Oval Office.) But the Democratic majority that we do have is a majority that the Iraq war created: its energy and strategies, its leadership and policy goals, and even its cultural advantages were forged in the backlash against George W. Bush’s Middle East policies.

All those now-apologetic liberals who supported the war in 2003 are a big part of this story, because without their hawkishness there would have been no antiwar rebellion on the left — no Michael Moore and Howard Dean, no Daily Kos and all its “netroots” imitators. ”

From the New York Times

OK, so I agree with Ross Douthat that the Iraq War has been good for the Democratic Party.

Political history lesson of the day: in 2003 the Republican Party had The White House with President George W. Bush and his administration, as well as a Republican Congress (House and Senate) with small majorities, but large enough for them to put through most of their economic agenda through, at least during that Congress.

With a divided Democratic opposition that really only had the Senate filibuster as a weapon they could use against the Bush Administration and Congressional Republicans. And any communications strategy and message that House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, Senate Minority Leader Tom Daschle, and the Democratic National Committee could put together against the Republican Party.

In 2004, President Bush is elected, with a small majority, but enough to get him reelected. House Republicans add a few seats to their thin majority. Senate Republicans go from 51 to 55 seats in the Senate. President Bush is at around 50% approval in late 2004 and going into 2005. This all looks like the Republican Party is not only the majority party, but it’s going to be that way for a while.

As the old political saying goes (or one that I just made up) a governing party and majority is only as good as it’s ability to govern and lead. You had a divided Republican Party on Social Security reform in early 2005, with House and Senate Democrats having no political reasons to work with Congressional Republicans on SS reform and that dies in the House and Senate by the summer of 2005. Hurricane Katrina happens in the late summer of 2005 and the disaster and the Bush Administration showing almost no ability to deal with that disaster and cleanup happens as well.

Going into the summer of 2005, I don’t think anyone was predicting that House and Senate Democrats had any real shot at either winning back the House or Senate in 2006, but the debacle in the Iraq War, and hurricane Katrina, President Bush’s low 30s approval rating by late 2005, as well as the corruption that was going on with House Republicans that year and into 2006, started this feeling in the country, especially with Democrats and Independents, that united government wasn’t working and Republican Party needed a check in Washington.

So yes, the War in Iraq has been good politically for the Democratic Party, especially when you look at where they were in 2003 and where they were less 4 years later. But the country has paid a helluva a price for it economically and militarily that I believe most Americans would love to go back to pre-Iraq War and thinking there’s no real good reason to ever invade Iraq, at least at this point.

Read Full Post »