New at Reason
Jonathan Rauch investigates what liberals and conservatives think about foreign policy; and what they will think in the future.
Comments to "New at Reason":
Interesting. So Republicans strongly favor getting involved in all kinds of foreign pissing matches on dubious "national security" grounds, while Democrats strongly favor getting involved in all kinds of foreign pissing matches on "humanitarian" grounds.
VM | March 27, 2007, 12:15pm | #
on dubious "humanitarian" grounds :)and both use these (mis)adventures to snatch more power and money at home.
and it's really fun watching those kookie kids on both sides decrying one set of (mis)adventures while justifying their own.
/clubs baby seal on bono outfit
joe | March 27, 2007, 12:17pm | #
"Republicans tend to think peace comes from U.S. strength, Democrats, from international cooperation."Even this overstates the differences. Democrats think that international cooperation increases our strength. Look at Wesley Clark's ideas about how working through NATO, though annoying, was vital to our efforts in the Balkans.
On the big picture, though, Rauch gets it right - Bush and his Iraq War are fostering a partisan split that is tough to find elsewhere.
D.A. Ridgely | March 27, 2007, 12:28pm | #
Democrats think that international cooperation increases our strength.Except maybe when it comes to free trade. And why on earth wasn't the Balkans a primarily European problem calling for a primarily European solution?
joe | March 27, 2007, 12:37pm | #
DA,1. Clinton pushed for and signed NAFTA, and virtually every Democrat holding offices supports free trade deals. The argument between the parties is about whether to include worker and environmental protections in the deals, not whether to sign them at all.
2. The question of whose job it is to stop genocide is irrelevant to the question of the role Democrats see international cooperation playing in furthering our power and security. Why are you changing the subject?
Grotius | March 27, 2007, 12:40pm | #
DAR,Well it may be the case that some U.S. policymakers are uncomfortable with truly independent European major military operations. Whether this is true or not, there are of course likely lots of other factors.
Will Allen | March 27, 2007, 12:50pm | #
The either/or, and the good/bad, generalized dichotimies of the debate between military strength and international cooperation are really quite stupidly simplistic, and thus quite predictable. Military strength is undoubtedly a good thing for the United States and the world; if the U.S. Navy didn't exist, it would have to be invented. At the same time, military strength used unwisely is a bad thing. International cooperation can further the interests of the U.S., while other actors can use ostensibly cooperative behavior to harm U.S. interests. Gee, in other words, the utility of tools is dependent on how they are employed! Who woulda' thunk it!?D.A. Ridgely | March 27, 2007, 12:52pm | #
Why are you changing the subject?(1) I'm not, I'm only reining in your overly broad comment, and (2) like you've never done that?
Clinton, as you yourself are wont to point out, isn't every Democrat, and while many Democrats, in or out of office, may favor some trade agreements, they certainly don't generally favor free trade. (Hint: worker and environmental protection strings do not a free trade deal make.)
joe & Grotius: Europe sat with its collective thumb up its collective ass as the Balkans went tits up. There's nothing especially Democratic about the reality that any deployment of U.S. troops there was necessarily going to involve NATO, all of which is aside from the point of whether the U.S. was the proper power to do something about the situation.
R C Dean | March 27, 2007, 12:59pm | #
Clinton pushed for and signed NAFTAAnd props for that.
virtually every Democrat holding offices supports free trade deals.
Not so much. Quite a few Dems voted against NAFTA, and I believe a majority of Congressional Dems voted against CAFTA.
Given the close ties between organized labor and the Dems, it will be very difficult for the Dems to move forward on free trade deals.
Will Allen | March 27, 2007, 1:01pm | #
I do think that Republicans and Democrats are often insufficiently Machiavellian in their approach to foreign policy, albeit usually in different ways. Republicans tend to bluster too much, and Democrats too often forget that a kind word and a gun, even if it is just barely visible inside a coat, tends to be more persuasive than a kind word alone.joe | March 27, 2007, 1:01pm | #
"I'm only reining in your overly broad comment." Ah, I see. You imagined that the term "every" or "without exception" appeared in my statement. That's a bad habit.And your comment about YOUR trade deals being better than THE OTHER GUYS' trade deals is irrelevant. You brought up the issue of trade agreements as an example of Democrats not believing in international cooperation as a means of increasing our strength, and you were wrong on the facts. That Democrats support increasing our strength through trade agreements that are slightly different from those you would support does not mean they are against using trade agreements as a way of increasing our strength.
joe | March 27, 2007, 1:05pm | #
RC Dean,"Quite a few Dems voted against NAFTA, and I believe a majority of Congressional Dems voted against CAFTA."
This ignores some important details. First, there was a significant anti-trade, openly-protectionist block among the Democrats back then, I agree, but that was over fifteen years ago. Clinton and Gore, combined with generational turnover, produced a significant shift on this issue within the party.
The CAFTA opposition was quite different - there was virtually no principled anti-trade argument made abainst it, as there was during the NAFTA debate. Opposition was based on the lack of labor and environmental protections which, regarless of your opinon about their values, is quite a different issue than protectionism.
Will Allen | March 27, 2007, 1:07pm | #
Yes, Joe, and I'm sure that Republicans are fully supportive of international agreements in which the other international actors simply adhere to the preferences of the Republicans' constituency. International diplomacy made easy!D.A. Ridgely | March 27, 2007, 1:09pm | #
That's a bad habit.So is writing unqualified statements such as "Democrats think that international cooperation increases our strength."
...and you were wrong on the facts.
If so, I certainly know better from prior experience than to ask you to cite any.
Will Allen | March 27, 2007, 1:10pm | #
joe, how is working to prevent the importation of goods manufactured without labor regulations favored by American unions not a form of protectionism?D.A. Ridgely | March 27, 2007, 1:11pm | #
Opposition was based on the lack of labor and environmental protections which, regarless of your opinon about their values, is quite a different issue than protectionism.I'm sorry, joe. I didn't realize at first that you were only being ironic in this thread. Never mind.
joe | March 27, 2007, 1:16pm | #
Will Allen,If you think the opposition to environmental and labor protections come from our negotiating parterns, you're off your rocker. It's American Republicans who are keeping them out.
'So is writing unqualified statements such as "Democrats think that international cooperation increases our strength."' Since you haven't been able to provide a cogent, defensible argument otherwise, I'm not going to stay awake tonight worrying about this. The one example you brought up has been shot down.
Will,
"joe, how is working to prevent the importation of goods manufactured without labor regulations favored by American unions not a form of protectionism?"
First, this is a discussion about political philosophy - it is the intent that matters here.
Second, if that was being done in isolation, it would amount to protectionism in practice, if not in spirit. However, we're talking about including environmental and labor protections in the context of trade deals that exist for the purpose of, and serve to, open up markets and undo protectionist barriers. If I give you $99, instead of the $100 you want, I'm not a thief, I'm a giver.
joe | March 27, 2007, 1:20pm | #
This is the same D.A. Ridgely who argues that the Civil Rights Act was a net loss for freedom, because of the provisions requiring lunch counters to serve black people.Not just that the public accommodation provision was a setback for freedom, but that the inclusion of that language made the entire Civil Rights Act unworthy of support by freedom-minded people.
Same intellectual failure, different day.
D.A. Ridgely | March 27, 2007, 1:26pm | #
Refresh my memory, joe. When exactly did I say exactly that?Grotius | March 27, 2007, 1:29pm | #
DAR,Does that really answer my question?
Europe sat with its collective thumb up its collective ass as the Balkans went tits up.
Not really. Anyway, pray reveal, which aspect of the Yugoslav Wars should Europe have intervened into? The war between Croatia and Yugoslavia?
joe | March 27, 2007, 1:31pm | #
The very last time we discussed the Civil Rights Act, on a thread on inactivist.org.I pointed out that the allegedly pro-freedom conservatives you hold in such high esteem, like Barry Goldwater, sat on the sidelines during the greatest expansion of human freedom our nation has seen the past century - the Civil Rights movmenets - if not actively opposing it, and you pounded the table for the poor restaurant owners, holding them out as the reason why opposition to the Civil Rights Act represented to pro-freedom side.
Apparently you've forgotten. Not me.
Grotius | March 27, 2007, 1:32pm | #
DAR,In other words, should Europe have intervened in Croatia's war of independence? Which aspect of this multi-party conflict - which said parties drop in and drop out of over a ten year period - should Europe have taken on?
Will Allen | March 27, 2007, 1:33pm | #
Yes, yes, joe, I'm off my rocker in thinking that our trade negotiating partners in Central and South America are not on board with the notion of U.S. labor unions' preferences being imposed on them. Sheesh, how could I ever have imagined this?Second, intent can never be seperated from known effects, and it is widely known that the effect American unions seek is that their membership not be exposed to wage competiton, thus moving manufacturing jobs out of the U.S.. Opposition to a trade agreement because it has insufficient labor "protections" is, yes, protectionism (duh) and it is a protectionism which Democrats favor, and which hinders the completion of international agreements.
Now, if one wishes to argue the merits of such a position, fine, but it really is extremely silly to assert that insisting on "labor protections" does not constitute protectionism. It is akin to an American steel manufacturer insisting that the Republican Party only conclude a trade agreement which regulates the final price of steel, and the Republicans asserting that this regulation does not entail protectionism.
D.A. Ridgely | March 27, 2007, 1:33pm | #
Grotius:What question did you ask? I agreed at least in part with your original statement. Sure, there were lots of factors in play and, yeah, there is an element, though I think a small one at this point, in American military and diplomatic circles that would prefer to remain in charge of any military operations in Europe. But this all started with joe's blanket assertion about Democrats and, in my opinion, silly invocation of Wesley Clark on the Balkans as evidence.
Grotius | March 27, 2007, 1:43pm | #
DAR,...in American military and diplomatic circles that would prefer to remain in charge of any military operations in Europe.
Well proposals by France and Germany to create multi-national military bodies independent of NATO don't seem to be viewed kindly in some quarters of the U.S. government. Whether the sentiment is small or large it certainly gets press coverage.
Will Allen | March 27, 2007, 1:44pm | #
We're going far afield here, but I'd argue that the greateat tragedy of the post-Civil War era, in regards to civil rights, was that the Federal Government did not vigorously pursue it's constitutional power to enforce the Civil War Amendments after Grant (an underrrated President, btw) left office, which led to former slaves and their decendents being unlawfully abused, often in a tremendously heinous fashion, despite there being legal mechanisms in place to halt such practices. As with many ironies in history, this hideous miscarriage of justice evetually led to the pendulum swinging back, meaning 1964 Civil Rights Act's trampling of other citizens' rights, albeit in a far less hideous fashion.D.A. Ridgely | March 27, 2007, 1:45pm | #
... you pounded the table for the poor restaurant owners, holding them out as the reason why opposition to the Civil Rights Act represented to pro-freedom side.Pounded on the table? Doubtful. What I probably said, shed of your inflammatory rhetoric, was that the sweeping public accommodations provisions of the Civil Rights Act were wrong. Yes, I do believe that private businesses should, with a few exceptions, be as free to pick their customers as customers are free to pick the businesses they use; and, no, this does not make me a racist, your pitiful attempts to paint me as such to the contrary.
As ad hominem attacks and attempts to discredit opposing views by discrediting the opponent go, joe, this is pretty desperate stuff on your part. I'm sorry the Inactivist archives aren't available to check whatever it was either or both of us said, but when the occasion arises again, we can debate the Civil Rights Act again. Now calm down and get back to flacking for the Democratic Party.
joe | March 27, 2007, 1:46pm | #
Will,"Yes, yes, joe, I'm off my rocker in thinking that our trade negotiating partners in Central and South America are not on board with the notion of U.S. labor unions' preferences being imposed on them. Sheesh, how could I ever have imagined this?"
First, take away the straw man of "U.S. labor unions' preferences." Second, do you know what a "deal" or an "agreement" is, by any chance? I ask, because you seem to think that one party asking for something the other would prefer not to give away, in exchange for something else they do want, is unusual or unfair in a negotiation.
Also, you don't seem to know what "protectionism" means. Hint: it does not refer to desiring the reduction of trade barriers to levels slightly above what you, personally, would like to see them at.
D.A. Ridgely | March 27, 2007, 1:48pm | #
Grotius:Agreed. And I have no strong opinion as for when or how other European nations should have intervened in the Balkans. I don't think it follows that I am not entitled to view it as a European crisis that should have been dealt with primarily by European and not U.S. forces.
Grotius | March 27, 2007, 1:52pm | #
DAR,Alright.
As to the argument you are having with joe, well, enjoy. :)
D.A. Ridgely | March 27, 2007, 1:54pm | #
Oh, that's just joe being joe.joe | March 27, 2007, 1:55pm | #
I never called you a racist, D.A., or even implied it. Please, I know by your dodging that my arguments intimidate you, but could please try to be man enought to actually address them, instead of making things up?What I said is that you have a twisted measure of freedom, not that you are a racist. In the thread in question, you went quite a bit beyond arguing that "... the sweeping public accommodations provisions of the Civil Rights Act were wrong," to arguing that inclusion of this provision justified opposition to the Civil Rights Act in its entirety, on the grounds that it was anti-freedom. You were quite insistent on this point - Goldwater was fighting for freedom when he opposed the Civil Rights Act, because of the poor restaurant and hotel owners. Perhaps you actually do appreciate the enormous advances in freedom that the Act, taken as a whole, produced for millions of people, but hey, priorities, right? On balance, the end of Jim Crow just doesn't match up, in your mind, to business owners being forbidden to discriminate.
So take off the martyr's cload and try to impersonate someone having an honest argument. I am perfectly calm as a repeat your argument back to you, and I'm perfectly calm as I point out that you are making the same mistake in regards to trade deals.
joe | March 27, 2007, 1:58pm | #
We can settle this quite easily, DA:Was Barry Goldwater correct to oppose the Civil Rights Act? Was it, on balance, a net gain for human freedom, or a net loss?
All you have to do is write, "No, he was wrong, the Civil Rights Act was a boon for human freedom," and we're done.
You don't even have to say you agree with the section banning discrimination in public accommodations, just acknowledge that the rest of the act, at a minimum balanced that section out.
But you won't do that, will you?
joe's inner voice | March 27, 2007, 2:02pm | #
Please, I know by your dodging that my arguments intimidate you, but could please try to be man enought to actually address them, instead of making things up?Do as I say, not as I do.
Grotius | March 27, 2007, 2:03pm | #
joe & DAR,If y'all want a neutral locale to argue out the merits of the Civil Rights Act I could create a thread on my blog for that purpose.
Will Allen | March 27, 2007, 2:06pm | #
Joe, please explain how it is a strawman to note that one of a political party's major constituencies is lobbying hard for it's prefrences be adopted by that political party? Now, do you know what a "deal breaker" is, by any chance? I ask, because you seem to think that insisting on a provision which the other party is most unlikely to agree to, under any circumstances, is not in effect deciding to not have an agreement.Now, it may be perfectly wise to avoid an agreement that lacks such a provision, but one should not be so dishonest as to pretend that one is not deliberately deciding to avoid entering into an agreement. As I stated above, I'm sure every Republican in the nation is fully on board with negotiating agreements on nearly every point of contention that could exist in the international arena, as long as other international actors will simply adhere to the preferences of the Republicans' constitutency. What's your point?
Now as to the definitions of "protectionism, they are of varying scope. I think this is among the most accurate...
"Practice of protecting domestic goods and service industries from foreign competition with tariff and non-tariff barriers."
....so leaving in place barriers because reducing them will expose the American labor to wage competition can fairly be called a form of protectionism.
D.A. Ridgely | March 27, 2007, 2:12pm | #
Oh come on, joe. Certainly a dishonest, dodging, unmanly martyr like me can't be expected to rise to the bait all that easily. Nor is your continued reliance on what you claim is your memory of an unrelated thread we can't check paraphrasing what you purport I contended just to defend yourself against your own silly and overreaching statements on this thread, however useful you once found such tactics back on your high school debate team, likely to carry the day except, doubtlessly, in your own mind.Really, joe, does this sort of stuff work down at your local party office?
joe | March 27, 2007, 2:13pm | #
Will,It is a straw man to state the inclusion of labor and environmental protections in trade deals is an attempt to include American worker and environmental standards - ie, our OSHA standards, our minimum wage, etc. If I misread your comment, and you were not making that assertion, I apologize.
"...the other party is most unlikely to agree to, under any circumstances..." Whoa, that's a big claim. You really don't think that Brazil, for example, would consider any environmental standards in exchange for our dropping tarrifs on sugar and ethanol?
"....so leaving in place barriers because reducing them will expose the American labor to wage competition can fairly be called a form of protectionism."
Doing so "because" their removal would expose American labor to wage competition would indeed be protectionism. I can tell you that my motives for supporting these protections have nothing to do with desiring less competition. I support protections for workers and the environment in trade deals for the same reaons I support them everywhere else.
joe | March 27, 2007, 2:15pm | #
OK D.A., I'm misstating your position.You DON'T think Barry Goldwater did the right thing in oppossing the Civil Rights Act.
You support the Act, even with its language about places of public accommodation, and believe that all liberty-loving people should.
Right?
Right?
JasonL | March 27, 2007, 2:20pm | #
I don't really get the strength vs international cooperation angle here. If you think cooperation provides security in the absence of strength, you are delusional.Cooperation is great, but at some point we have to recognize that security requires commitments that other countries just can't or won't make.
joe | March 27, 2007, 2:25pm | #
JasonL,Speaking for myself, I don't view cooperation and alliances as a replacement for the U.S. having a powerful military, but a complement to it.
This isn't a "Give Peace a Chance" argument. I'm looking at the coalitions we had going into Kosovo and Afghanistan and Iraq (the first time), and noticing how much better we were able to do than in Operation Iraqi Freedom.
Will Allen | March 27, 2007, 2:26pm | #
joe, I luv' ya' babe, but you aren't a major constituency for the Democratic Party. Union leadership is, and the unions in this country, on an institutional level, oppose any trade agreements which might increase wage competition form overseas, which is why they lobby the Democrats to insist on yes, deal breakers, in trade negotiations. I'm not familiar with environmental issues, and the role they play in other countires outside of the E.U., but I am pretty darn sure that the labor protections which American unions lobby for are in effect deal breakers. It is protectionism, pure and simple, every bit as much so as a manufacturer or service provider concocting some sort of safety concern in an effort to head off a lowering of trade barriers, in an effort to avoid increased competition, while not endorsing tariffs pr se.Will Allen | March 27, 2007, 2:38pm | #
Joe, by far the greates difference between Gulf War II, as opposed to Gulf War I, or Kosovo and Afghanistan, was that the what was being attempted in Gulf War II was, at a minimum, about a magnitude more difficult. The primary reason why cooperation was much more easy to attain in the latter conflicts was because achieving goals was so obviously much easier.To the extent that people in this Administration did not grasp how much more difficult a task they were attempting, that was their greatest failure.
joe | March 27, 2007, 2:41pm | #
Will,I don't doubt that there are some who advocate for deal breakers, as you describe. But I'll refer you back to John Kerry in one of the 2004 debates. When asked about these standards by Jim Lehrer - "Do you mean we should ask for American standards? The American minimum wage?"
He replied, "Well, we could ask," and chuckled, as a big laugh went around the room. He then clarified that he wasn't talking about American standards, because that would unrealistic.
Let's just say, some labor and environmental standards may be protectionistic deal-breakers, but that we shouldn't then assume that they all are.
Will Allen | March 27, 2007, 2:47pm | #
Fine, but then let's also avoid saying, as many do, that Republicans oppose attempts to foster international cooperation. I'm no Republican, but, as I said above, the broad assignment of such qualities to a political party exclusively is just silly.joe | March 27, 2007, 2:52pm | #
Will,I can agree with that. Ronald Reagan had no problem signing deals with the Soviets, and Papa Bush could certainly get his coalition on.
On the other hand, there are the John Boltons of the GOP, and they do hold a great deal of sway. I think Rauch gets it about right in his piece - there is an anti-alliance, unilateralist faction at the top of the party that is much more extreme than most Republicans.
Will Allen | March 27, 2007, 3:07pm | #
Yes, joe, and Reagan was excoriated by the John Kerry faction of the Democratic Party for being insufficiently open to negotiations. Without the benefit of hindsight, it is really difficult to be certain as to who is being too obstinate, and who is wisely assessing that the time is not ripe for negotiating.Writing definitive history without the benefit of several decades of reflection is a fool's errand, to say nothing of trying to do so in real time. Pundits, if they endeavored to achieve wisdom, would do well to adopt more humility. Of course, endeavoring to obtain attention is more often the goal, and most pundits think humility is a poor tactic in that pursuit.
joe | March 27, 2007, 3:26pm | #
Will Allen,Well, you have to admit, Reagan did perform a pretty spectacular flip-flop on the questions of negotiation and coexistance. And more credit to him for doing so - that he could recognize that the containment end game had come, and that he could act on it despite spending decades arguing against containment and in favor of rollback - was something extraordinary in American history. Nixon going to China was nothing compared to Reagan's adoption of the charm offensive.
I don't think this proves Carter and Kerry wrong about how to deal with the Soviets when they were in their hardline stance. Even
You know what George Will wrote the day after the Iceland agreement was announced? "Yesterday will be remembered as the day American lost the Cold War."
Also, Will, let's keep in mind that it wasn't just liberal making those complaints. The Reagan administration itself realized that its efforts to scare the Soviets had worked a little too well, and decided to dial it back.
Will Allen | March 27, 2007, 3:48pm | #
joe, John Kerry most decidedly was wrong when he vehemently oppposed, along with many other Democrats, the deployment of intermediate nuclear weapons in Europe. It was that deployment which allowed for more advantageous grounds from which to negotiate from at a later date. I know Democrats really are loathe to credit Reagan for much, but there is significant archival material from the end of the Soviet era which indicates that the early 80s defense build-up put extreme pressure on a tottering Soviet state.JasonL | March 27, 2007, 3:57pm | #
I'm often struck how similarly joe and I describe international relations, for all that we don't agree on anything much in the way of policy.I am, relative to this crowd, a pretty hawkish guy. At the core of that position is my firm belief that fear is part of negotiation, the most important part actually, and not something separate from it.
If you are seeking to influence people who already agree with you to some marginal change, you can exercise many types of positive influence. To influence bad actors, the people you really need to influence, you need an undercurrent of credible menace. If you put it on the table that you will not deploy force unless you have tanks on Main Street, you can expect everything short of such to be deployed against you. If you are obviously incapable of projecting force, you will have the same problem.
Grotius | March 27, 2007, 4:01pm | #
JasonL,In that scheme then isn't the problem determining who is and who is not a "bad actor?" Given that enough wars have been undertaken due to irrational concerns that makes such a question seem even more pressing.
joe | March 27, 2007, 4:08pm | #
Will,On the specific question of the intermediate-rage missiles, maybe. But on the larger question of Reagan's belligerence, even the Reaganite concede that he went too far.
Also, I'll point out that what you're calling "the defense build-up of the early 80s" started under Carter.
Will Allen | March 27, 2007, 4:09pm | #
The problem with many libetarians', and others' thinking in foreign relations is that they too often fail to fully grasp that the international arena really still is in many ways a Hobbesian state in which there is damned little in the way of agreed-upon norms. To function in such an environemt without the ability and willingness to intill fear, or without a proxy able and willing to do it for you, is to invite violent predation.If the U.S., after the Soviet Empire collapsed, had announced it was scaling back it's forces to a level consistent with merely protecting it's borders, the world would have seen armed conflcit on a hugely larger scale than has been observed for the past 15 years, and nearly everyone, including U.S. citizens, would have been much the poorer for it.
joe | March 27, 2007, 4:12pm | #
JasonL,I am, relative to this crowd, a fairly hawkish guy, other than on Iraq. I think we agree more than we realize, because the politics surrounding the Iraq War were so carefully designed to cause people like us to be at each others' throats, and because the Iraq issue is sucking up all the air.
"At the core of that position is my firm belief that fear is part of negotiation, the most important part actually, and not something separate from it."
I agree, which is why it is so irritating to see the righties equate any effort at diplomacy or negotiation with appeasement and surrender.
Oh, absolutely, after Carter saw what his naivete was getting him, he struck a new course, and reversed course from the preferences of the McGovern/Kerry wing of the party, which Carter was not a part of, at least not in those days. Reagan did ramp things up from the direction that Carter began, and correctly so.
joe | March 27, 2007, 4:15pm | #
Will,I'll see your "McGovern/Kerry wing of the party," and raise you a Ford wing of the GOP.
JasonL | March 27, 2007, 4:21pm | #
Grotius:In order, the criteria for action should be A) Is it justified, B) Is is prudent. I see several cases for justification:
* military action against a non threatening democratic government- is broadly unjustified. Call this the Chavez rule.
* military action against a threatening democratic government - is justifiable.
* military action against an unrepresentative government - is always justifiable.
* military action against a threatening force not affiliated with a military - is justifiable.
Given that third concept, one that most around here don't agree with, what constrains me from total war with every thug on the planet is the prudence standard.
If you could push a button, and with no cost eliminate Kim Jong Il, if it were purely an issue of whether or not you were justified, I'd press the button all day long.
R C Dean | March 27, 2007, 4:27pm | #
Opposition was based on the lack of labor and environmental protections which, regarless of your opinon about their values, is quite a different issue than protectionism.So-called labor and environmental protections are often the pretexts that protectionism now adopts. In fact, I am not at all clear how the imposition of regulatory requirements such as these on trade is consistent with "free" trade.
But, if the Dems are now the home of the free traders (over the objections of their major fundraising base, the unions) I expect to see free trade legislation popping out of Congress any day now. Right?
Grotius | March 27, 2007, 4:32pm | #
JasonL,What do you mean by justifiable, and how exactly does one divorce prudence from such? Are you trying to broadly echo folks like Grotius and Hobbes? What about the issue of consent (for option three)?
Grotius | March 27, 2007, 4:34pm | #
JasonL,Indeed, more broadly, whose standard are you using to determine "representativeness?"
Will Allen | March 27, 2007, 4:34pm | #
Oh, gosh, after the post Watergate election of 1974, was there any wing of the GOP worth mentioning until November, 1980?How the heck Carter didn't win by a much larger margin in 1976 has always been a puzzle to me.
JasonL | March 27, 2007, 4:53pm | #
Representative - there is an institutionalized non violent way to change your leader.Justified - the minimum elements needed for the ethical use of force against another party. Kim Jong Il's existence is a blight on the world. He has engaged in murder and the deprivation of millions of people. That he is not making a threat against the US at the moment means nothing. He is a threat to his own people and that is enough.
JasonL | March 27, 2007, 4:57pm | #
Prudent action - there is a favorable cost / benefit calculation to a given action.Consent - the same problem we face in deploying force to prevent domestic abuse. Sometimes we cause greater harm and sometimes we'd never get express consent. I'm not comfortable with the idea that because of those possiblities, we are prohibited from taking action to prevent spouse abuse.
Grotius | March 27, 2007, 5:14pm | #
JasonL,Don't these definitions that you've provided depend on some further undefined variable/idea?
Grotius | March 27, 2007, 5:16pm | #
JasonL,As to the whole "threat to his own people" business, the Romans used this argument often enough to invade perfectly peaceable states. I'll be honest, I do not think that the Grotian/Hobbesian view of foreign affairs you describe provides any real standard by which to check a state from willy-nilly invading another nation on pretextual grounds.
JasonL | March 27, 2007, 5:28pm | #
"Don't these definitions that you've provided depend on some further undefined variable/idea?"I don't think you can nail it down to a single principle. I also don't think this is all that fuzzy.
Ayn Randian | March 28, 2007, 11:25am | #
However, we're talking about including environmental and labor protections in the context of trade deals that exist for the purpose of, and serve to, open up markets and undo protectionist barriers. If I give you $99, instead of the $100 you want, I'm not a thief, I'm a giverCute! Only a government-lackey like joe could think that government "allowing" people to openly trade is some kind of gift that we lucky peons received, instead of, you know, a god-given (used for effect, not for belief) right that we all should have to freely associate with whom we choose.
joe, as it pertains to immigration, wouldn't you say then that the United States policy is generous, in that it allows for SOME immigration? After all, it could just bar immigration and that would be that...but I suppose we should all be thankful for the "gifts" our overlords dispense to us.