Moon of Alabama Brecht quote
September 23, 2004
The New Security Doctrine

This part of Bush’s speech at the United Nation General Assembly needs to be thought about:

In this young century, our world needs a new definition of security. Our security is not merely found in spheres of influence, or some balance of power. The security of our world is found in the advancing rights of mankind.

Paul Krugman saysHe doesn’t really believe that.” because Bush doesn´t live up to the claim when he supports Russias Putin. Other see reason to be concerned.

In a letter to the NYT Editor Benjamin Solomon explains:

In the context of recent history, many will interpret this to mean the United States’ leading a group of countries to bring a version of freedom to the designated country in accord with American interests and aims.

Such a policy would also signify a marked change in the United Nations Charter and the prospect of unending war.

For the American body politic, such a policy declares that the conceptual position with which the administration now defends the Iraq war will be permanently central to America’s role in the world.

Most people in this world will not agree to have their “rights of mankind” “advanced” to the fundamentalistic faith based George Warmonger Bush version. Those who do not have the gift of basic rights today for sure would like to have it. But what price are they willing to pay?

Unlike during the last ideologic world struggle, the Cold War, this doctrine leaves the US without an ideologic coalition. Has any other country a vision of advancing rights of mankind that is compatible with Bush’? I hope not, but the power of the United States may be big enough to intermediatly press others into this framework.

Comments

http://amsam.org/
Most honest observers would rate the Progressive movement’s impact on public affairs as “insignificant”. Such judgments shouldn’t come as a shock. After all, what is a “progressive”? I’d imagine the dozens of answers to that question would be as diverse as the multitude of factions that call themselves “progressive.” In fact, I’d say that Progressivism is not a movement at all. Rather, it is a plurality of special interests and radical politics that needed a word to replace “liberal”. Adele Stevenson once remarked that a Liberal was “one who had both feet firmly planted in the air.”
The various sects of Progressivism — which include New Deal Liberalism, Socialism, environmentalism, pacifism and anarchism — tend to keep their goals self-centered, static, and uncompromising. This is a shame; if these sects could cooperate and support each other, they might be able to revolutionize our government.
Most of the ideas forged by the progressive mind are forever exiled to highbrow books, academia, and the local coffee shop debating society. Meanwhile, Conservatives find total unity in their never ending quest for the dollar.
Conservative philosopher Russell Kirk once wrote that Conservatism is “the negation of ideology”. Indeed, what appears as conservative ideology to a progressive is actually the conservative’s “populist” bait for the voters. The conservative is not concerned with abortion or gay marriage, rather the conservative is interested in using those issues to gain votes. Indeed, as a general rule, stupid people are the easiest to control and reward. Thus, the backward message of pro-Life, anti-gay, “pro-bombing the browns” gets Republicans elected. Like moths to a porchlight, it draws the troves of racist weak-minded dolts to vote polls. Meanwhile, the progressives are still debating the finer points of enviromental reform at Joe’s Java.
Once the conservatives are elected, than they usually proceed with their planned orgy-like festivals of tax breaks and corporate handouts. Since they are good businessmen, they are also sure to throw some table scraps to their base in the form of a judicial nominations or proposed amendments. It keeps the dogs coming back.
It’s a bleak reality for progressives. Our entire movement depends upon people being intelligent and good hearted — and look where its gotten us: A Democratic canidate who is tanking, the prospect of the supreme court being controlled by rightwing ideologies, a Republican congress, and a “war president”. So, I’ve dropped the dream of “waking people up”. I’ve decided to cross over to the dark side.
Unless we Progressives can learn the “dark arts of Rove”, we don’t stand a chance. Its time that we learn to pluck the strings of greed, vanity, and stupidity in the electorate. But don’t fret, we just have to change our message, not our ideals — and god forbid one of us gets elected, we could exercise our power in the way we always knew we would have: to advance that which is true, just, and beautiful.
“In our age there is no such thing as ‘keeping out of politics.’ All issues are political issues, and politics itself is a mass of lies, evasions, folly, hatred and schizophrenia.”-George Orwell

Posted by: Uncle $cam | Sep 24 2004 8:24 utc | 1

From an LAT OpEd today Democracy in Retrograde -The Iraq war has slowed calls for reform in Iran.

Iranians in recent months have slowed their calls for reform, that they have indicated that they want change from within and that they have quietly and hesitantly submitted to the rule of a more monolithic conservative polity. For a lot of people, both among the ordinary public and the elite, the level of instability in Iraq is an unacceptable cost to pay for political reform.

Posted by: b | Sep 24 2004 9:46 utc | 2

I realize that I have been citing references involving Native Americans quite frequently, and it might not resonate w/ everybody, but Jim Lobe’s latest article, Human dignity, Crazy Mike and Indian country
alerted me to a WSJ opinion piece from Robert Kaplan, Indian Country that really should be contextualized against the events surrounding the museum dedication in DC this very same week.

Posted by: Anonymous | Sep 24 2004 18:07 utc | 3

that was me above, of course…

Posted by: b real | Sep 24 2004 18:08 utc | 4