Conservatives and liberals, come together!

Despite the impression anyone might get from my strident posts about the Iraq war, one thing I like about the new, neoconservative right - or the ideologues rather than the opportunists among them in any case - is its idealistic commitment to change the world and enforce social change. I dont think it can ever work the way they go about it - in fact, I strongly feel any attempt of the kind they specialise in is bound to backfire - but the ambition in itself is laudable. When was the last time an American president seriously committed himself to promoting democratic change in the Arab world, even if only rhetorically? At the very least, the issue is on the agenda again, and though the brave researchers of the UN Human Development report on the Arab world and the US neocons furiously disagree with each other on the means, they reinforce each other's message that the relatively unperturbed way Arab leaders could rule their subjects is at least under scrutiny now.

The whole thing will only start to work once the Americans start demanding more democracy from the countries that support them, too (think Central Asia), but even the hypocritically slanted focus on demanding more democracy in the states it opposes constitutes a demand for more democracy, when until recently nobody seemed to give a damn.

I dont know how it is in America, but in Europe the hard ("red") left (as opposed to most of the radical "green" left) overwhelmingly resists all and any military intervention. They were against the intervention in Kosovo, against the one in Afghanistan, against the one in Iraq. Compared to such "red isolationism", the strident interventionism of the neocons sometimes almost seems benevolent.

On the same count, one related point: at least the neocons seem to have an agenda. You have to give them that. They have their ambitious interventionism in common with most of the Greens here, even if the solutions they propose are usually all the opposite. The hard left, on the other hand, doesnt seem to get beyond a "I'm against whatever the US/NATO does". No agenda, no plan ... no clue, I sometimes think. At the very least, Bush's global ambitions should force any leftist to come up with a plan of his own on what to do about dictatorship and genocide abroad.

Ineresting post, nimh. You mentioned the red left and the green left. What ideas fit into the green left scheme of things? Sounds like they have at least some kind of pro-active plan, just wondered what it might be.

Interesting views.
As a Green Party member, I don't believe in pre-emptive invasion of other countires by the USA unless there is a proven, immediate threat of attack from that country. Forced violent regime changes of another country is another concept that I don't agree with, expecially if that country is a quasi democracy. I don't believe there are any actual democracies. At best most countries are representative Republics. I believe that the USA is an Oligarchy.

Changing other countries' regimes if they are brutal dictatorships is a concept that perhaps an entire post could be about. I will start one.

Concerning military interventions? Or in general?

Military
Violent forced regime change, such as Iraq, Aghanistan Iran, Chile, Haiti, El Salvador, etc. The USA may not have directly overthrown many regimes but they backed,financed and trained right wing forces via the CIA to do so.

Oh sorry, I hadnt seen your post Pistoff, my Q was to Kickycan.

Yeh, the American Green Party is a very different beast from continental European Green parties. Nader is more of a Leninist than the kind of libertine multilateralist that'll vote Joschka Fischer into a next term as German Foreign Minister.

With the exception of the British and some Scandinavian Greens, European Green parties have actually become quite interventionist when it comes to foreign policy. Though the only argument that'll convince them is the "humanitarian" one - following the Kosovo example, say.

They are dedicated to the UN, though, and to the concept of a new, more concerted international (legal) system - big fans of the ICC in The Hague. Hence the outrage at Bush's "preemptive war" practices. I guess I'm fairly typical for the current-day continental Greens in this respect. The Greens used to have an extremely strong pacifist wing, but its been zoned out a lot in the past decade.

The "red" hard left (that's left of Labour, btw) overall goes more for unambiguous, populist resistance - any action undertaken by the US/Nato/"the West" must be wrong, and we're here to denounce and protest it! They bring up "self-determination" a lot, and "imperialism".

Basically, the difference in perspective was summed up at the demo here against the war in Iraq last year. The Socialist Party banner said "no blood for oil". The Green one "make law not war".

Kickycan
Kickycan, I'm having trouble trying to define conservative and liberal within the parameters you set. Do you mean those espousing the "classic" definition of conservative and liberal? If so, they will be hard to find because political thinking has changed so much since the 1960s that those titles rarely fit today's political thinking. There are too many shades of conservative and liberal to ascribe good and bad policies to them.

BBB

Okay, Bumblebee, I see your problem here . . . hmmm . . . I guess the easiest way to get a ballpark idea of things would be to go to Bush and Kerry's websites. I would go with what is considered liberal and conservative today, but you can go anyway you want. Just let it all out, my friend.

.

Remember Bush "the candidate" ?

He distinctly said we (the US) ought not be in the business of nation building.

I really agree with that. It is arrogant to assume we know what's best for everyone else in the world AND that we have the right to impose what we think on them. Nation building also spreads our military way too thin.

Too bad Bush was just blowing smoke on this issue.

(And on most issues.)

.

Okay, is there any one on the conservative side who has anything to say? You guys wouldn't want the liberals calling you closed-minded, would you?

damn, I thought you said "closet minded"
nevermind

First of all, we need to understand something here. Democrats and republicans are really not all that different. If you go back to the first two parties in this country, you find Federalists in dissent over what Democratic-Republicans were advocating...in short, a new world order. The federalists wanted the old world order to be replicated in the new world, and they say the Democratic-Republicans are a faction, not a party, and a dangerous, green, and untried one at that.

Since then, the dems and repubs have split into two versions of the same original ideology, and the federalists have remained perfectly true to their original dissent and desire for the old world system, which in fact was set up in the economic hierarchy.

The real struggle here isn't democrats against republicans, it is democrats AND republicans against federalist traditionalists who aren't republican or democrat in the slightest.

Granted, we don't have people running around outwardly calling themselves federalists, but they are very much in existance in this country, and you all can spot them easily enough when their actions are in total contradiction to their republican or democratic pledges.

The right to bear arms is a good example of what I am trying to say here. How is it that the right to bear arms to defend oneself against a tyrannical government if need be is conservative? It's about as liberal an ideology you can get. And that is the key here. BOTH republicans and democrats are LIBERAL. It is the federalists who are the conservatives here.

The democratic-republicans of 1800 were not conservative. The federalists were. Granted, 200 years later, there has been some blurring going on about just what is conservative and what is liberal, but the distinction is still perfectly clear, if somewhat misinterpretated nowadays.

Again, the idea of a weak government, how is that conservative? It's a liberal idea that contradicts thousands of years of history where governments have had absolute power....traditionally...and here we have people saying the cry for weak government is conservative, when in fact it is highly liberal.

Somehow, the feds got us thinking republicans and democrats are at odds with one another, but it simply is not true. Both are at odds with the Federalists, the real conservatives in this country that want the traditional autocratic government.

Somehow they have managed to pit us against each other while they work on changing this country back into an old world version, and so far, it has been working like a charm.

Still, it is becoming clear, especially with Bush, that wanting to change America to an old world system is a lot easier than actually doing it. Bush has been trying mightily, but he has had to step back from it every time because of the complete and harsh criticism he gets every time he tries to take rights away from us, or set up stronger government over our lives. He has to backpedal, and sooner or later, people are going to start asking the question.

He keeps backing off things he's trying....Why?

Umbagog
Umbagog, excellent post illustrating my earlier comments. What Kickycan asks us to posit really isn't possible.

BBB

I just tried to cram about 200 years of American history down your throats, and it would take volumes of work to prove it all.

However, look at it this way.

The real conservative wants power, classes, dirt-cheap labor trapped in poverty and ignorance, traditional expectations, a strong central authority that rules over, not oversees the surrounding state governments. The real conservative does not trust science, and uses God to justify all manners of atrocities. The real conservative has no use for conservation or investing in society. The real conservative thinks he or she is superior to everyone else, and therefore has the right to rule over us.

If you have a democratic guy or republican guy or gal that falls into any of these categories, that person is really a conservative federalist, no matter what republicans or democratic tripe they are pledging to do. If their actions are consistant with the above description, they are not really republicans or democrats. The way they vote and what they vote for is the only way you can discern what their real ideological goals are.

To accept any democrat or republican at face value is how you are being deceived by a conservative federalist. They WANT you to think they are republicans or democrats, and once you do, they start enacting conservative federalist agendas in Congress and the White House.

You have been warned.

I did not say this.

I was not here.

Umbagog
Umbagog

BOO! Peekaboo, I see you cowering there in the corner.

BBB

Yeah, bumble, I can see you get it. I think the questioner here gets it too, or else, he's pretty damn close to the idea.

He's stating there are elements in both parties that either side can agree with. This is more true than he may realize. Both parties were once one party, in the beginning, and the roots are still there.

What people don't seem to understand is that there is another party in this country, the federalists, who are in direct opposition to democrats and republicans alike.

They got republicans thinking they are conservative when they are not. They've got us thinking democrats are all liberal and they are not. They are HIDING behind republican and democratic masks, which is what is confusing the issue.

I guarantee you, and I am sure that there are some republicans here that are looking at what I am typing in stunned disbelief and shock....but republicanism is ultraliberal if anything. Anyone advocating that government is essentially bad and needs to be kept in a weakened state is a LIBERAL not a conservative. Six thousand years of history on this planet are chock full of CONSERVATIVE, AUTOCRATIC RELIGIOUS/GOVERNMENT control over the masses....without a single exception except for some original departures from this in Greece and Rome. But it wasn't until WE came along with radical, liberal ideas like freedom and rights to bear arms and free speech that true liberal ideology was born in the world. COnservative ideology has the weight of thousands of years behind it, not liberalism. The liberal ideology is the newcomer on the scene, and it is a radical departure by the Democratic-Republicans circa 1800 AWAY from conservative ideology and traditional expectations of government and power.

The Federalists INSISTED the Democratic-Republicans were a FACTION, not a legitimate party....a faction bent on DESTROYING traditional values through freedom and science and education and self-defense. The federalists considered themselves the only legitimate party in this country, and they were OPPOSED to all that the Democratic-Republicans wanted. They were the original conservatives against liberalism, and after 200 years, nothing has changed. The situation is severely confused as to who exactly it is that is liberal or conservative, but the original conflict of conservative federalist versus liberal Democratic-Republican is not only alive and well in this country, but coming to a serious head right about now.

Once you grasp this aspect of your history, the modern world makes a lot more sense, and it is in perfect continuity with the world of the past and the events leading up to the present.

The only thing I wonder about is if the feds are consciously aware and perpetuating the deception about the true nature of their ideology, and seeking to divide and conquor all the rest of us, or if it is just arrogance and ignorance at work here?

If it is a conspiracy, then it is hidden in plain sight, and all the more harder to detect because we have been educated into a position that does not reflect the reality of the situation.

????????????????????????????????????

The bottom line though comes back to the question. Why can't we understand we are more alike than different? And why can't we find common ground where common ground exists in abundance?

Who is blocking us, and why?

"real conservative"
Sounds more like an Autocrat.

Conservatives, Libertarians and Liberals believe in Capitalism. Their concepts of Capitalism differ.

Well, originally capitalism was a Liberal idea, and the conservatives werent all too happy with it ... messed up the whole thing with the estates, it did, what with the bourgeoisie getting uppity over the money it started earning with the dealing and trading that the nobility considered below itself ...

thaza long time ago tho.

Autocrats are the only real conservatives.

That's the truth. Everyone else that believes in freedom, free enterprise, etc, are liberals, not conservatives. Freedom, enterprise, etc., all come into conflict with someone trying to conserve traditional powers and authorities.

MacCain, one of the few real republicans left in America, is not the stalwart conservative his party is supposed to be. He advocated campaign finance reform, which is something the conservatives wanted nothing to do with.

Don't believe me if you want, and I am sure most don't. But our history is perfectly clear on all this, and if you understand your history, you will come to agree with me.

the thing is, of course, the meaning of words - and especially political terms - changes over time. there's no "real" meaning here, at most there is the "original" meaning. today's social-democrats are also a wholly different beast from those of 1900.