"U.S. war against liberals goes global"

watson institute ^ | Abbott Gleason

[astoundedlib]

"U.S. war against liberals goes global" Electronic Media by Abbott Gleason

The Watson Institute thanks the Providence Journal Bulletin for permission to reprint this article on our website.

THE UNITED STATES is almost certainly at a turning point in its history. The momentous nature of the changes in our political and economic life make the present moment superficially comparable to 1946-48, when the Cold War was launched. But the changes seem deeper and more far-reaching than that, if only because American global power dominates in a way quite different from the way it did at the end of World War II—when it was pledged to be defensive, rather than the opposite, as now.

It is not just that the United States is now the only superpower and can more or less do as it pleases. The United States has achieved this power at the same time as—and in close connection with—a revolt against liberalism. The revolt may be as deep as the one that began in the 1880s and reached its climax with the totalitarian regimes of the 1920s and ’30s in Europe. It may even be that the present moment will ultimately be compared to the period when the Roman Republic was giving way to empire, as a number of critics have suggested.

But let’s stay in the context of the last hundred years or so. One of the characteristics of the rightist intellectuals who supported the post-World War I national revolutions in Germany and Italy was their contempt for the welfare state—which they linked with the necessity for imperial expansion. Such extreme theoreticians as Carl Schmitt believed that the European states had to choose between defending their national communities—even by force—and a debilitating commitment to popular welfare. They saw the latter as increasingly absorbing the energies of a weak-kneed liberalism, such as that of Italy’s pre-Mussolini regime or the Weimar Republic, in Germany.

The right-wing Schmitt believed that the state existed only to oppose the enemies of the national community and to ensure order at home. To use a formulation he made famous, the state is only an institutional expression of the friend-enemy polarity. Liberals had embarked, he said, on a fruitless crusade to escape political conflict within their societies by expanding the state’s welfare function, to appease the masses—thereby weakening the state’s “executive function.”

So for him and others, there was a necessary connection between an overdue revival of militarism and imperialism and the curtailing of social welfare.

Mutatis mutandis. There seems to be a similar connection between the Bush administration’s imperial foreign policy and its proposed tax cuts—which would not only benefit the richest Americans but also strangle the welfare state. There are crises at the state level all over the United States. Educational institutions are being starved, benefits to the poor are being cut; the proportion of Americans living in poverty is up, as is inequality; a crisis in Medicare and Social Security looms. And these results are actually being promoted, in conjunction with the tax cuts that, if enacted, will erode the capacity of the state—for generations -- to undertake any but the most minimal welfare functions.

There are other parallels with the past. In the late 19th Century’s anti-liberal revolt, there was also an attack on cultural “decadence” and a demand for a return to religion and order. In Italy and Germany, and, in a different way, the Soviet Union, totalitarian government came to prevail. In other nations, too, constitutional guarantees were weakened or abolished: Authoritarian and traditionalist governments in Spain, Portugal, Poland, Hungary and Austria came to power, as did a quasi-Fascist government in Rumania. Liberals were seen as wimps; local patriotism prevailed.

There were, of course, variations. In the Soviet Union, private business was demonized and expropriated; in Germany and Italy, it was at least thoroughly dominated by the political elite. By contrast, in the present anti-liberal revolt, as led by the United States, business is an intimate partner of—almost indistinguishable from—government. When Iraq is rebuilt, most of the contracts will probably go to companies with ties to Vice President Cheney and others in the Bush administration. Non-American firms appear not to be earmarked for participation.

The military-industrial complex that Eisenhower warned us against almost half a century ago is attaining its maturity. Its aim seems to be to tear down all that remains of the New Deal.

Too little noticed has been the about-face the Bush administration has made since 9/11. From an indecisive tendency toward isolationism, and reliance for security on such Rube Goldberg devices as the anti-missile system, the imperial drive for world dominance has within months become the administration’s doctrine (though it has been more than a decade in the planning). In that drive, constitutional protections are being eroded—as when the attorney general refers to “enemy combatants” to deny prisoners the right to legal counsel or even communication with their families.

Historically, people often don’t notice the most significant changes in their society. Living in everyday reality, they tend not to see the big picture. But we should make no mistake: Nothing like this has happened since the period following World War I.

Abbott Gleason, an occasional contributor, is a professor of history at Brown University and the author of Totalitarianism (Oxford University Press, 1995).

[astoundedlib]

Good day all!

First i do not agree that much on what it is said in there...But i had a questions regarding conservative's value...

Like liberals are claimed to be a source to terrorism, shouldn't they be included in the war against terror? I am being radical and I apologize but i would like to know your opinions about a war against liberals...I won't even commant on the article unless a direct question is asked...

Best regards.

[mnehring]

Buh Bye.. nice try..

[jazusamo]

adios

[xcamel]

Every country that was well on it's way to economic freedom and political liberty in the 70's and 80's, that we unleashed "liberalism" on, are now back to being "3rd world hell holes". (look it up - start with Kenya)

[tongue-tied]

au revoire

[American Blood]

The Bilderberg's and the Council on Foreign Relations are focused on other things at the moment. Don't worry though, they'll get around to extinguishing liberals from the face of the earth soon enough...

[MichiganConservative]

The military-industrial complex that Eisenhower warned us against almost half a century ago is attaining its maturity. Its aim seems to be to tear down all that remains of the New Deal.

They say that as if tearing down all that remains of the New Deal is a bad thing.

Is this "war on liberals" a shooting war? That should be pretty one-sided since they want to disarm everyone but the government and I assume they would lead by example and disarm first.

[Gordongekko909]

There seems to be a similar connection between the Bush administration’s imperial foreign policy and its proposed tax cuts—which would not only benefit the richest Americans but also strangle the welfare state.

This guy didn't pay very close attention to the tax cuts, did he? They pushed the tax burden upwards. The rich got a bigger tax cut in sheer dollar amounts, that much is true. But in terms of who is shouldering all the revenue going into the federal budget, the wealthiest Americans are paying more than ever.

There are crises at the state level all over the United States. Educational institutions are being starved, benefits to the poor are being cut; the proportion of Americans living in poverty is up, as is inequality; a crisis in Medicare and Social Security looms.

That's because liberalism doesn't work. Government entitlement programs will continue to expand and consume resources until there "aren't enough" resources to do everything the program is supposed to do. Welfare doesn't solve problems: it creates them.

And these results are actually being promoted, in conjunction with the tax cuts that, if enacted, will erode the capacity of the state—for generations -- to undertake any but the most minimal welfare functions.

Not quite. Government always has the ability to redistribute wealth. It's just that we see it as a bad thing. The private sector can perform these "welfare functions" far more efficiently than any government can.

[ModelBreaker]

Like liberals are claimed to be a source to terrorism, shouldn't they be included in the war against terror?

They would have to want to be included. All liberals seem to be interested in is regaining power, regardless the cost to their nation and the lives of our soldiers, and then sticking their collective heads back in the sand and repeating 'We are not at war, we are not at war. The French still like us. The French still like us.' A more destructive lot I have never seen.

I welcome any liberal (Christopher Hitchens and Orson Scott Card come to mind) who actually want to fight this war. Until then, they should keep out of the way and stop trying to make their country lose.

[stylin_geek]

Welcome to FR.

The article is trying to draw specious parallels using DNC talking points. Notice one paragraph uses the "Halliburton is evil" talking point without mentioning Halliburton by name.

Do you have any idea how much money has been spent on the "War on Poverty.? Do you realize that what is called poverty here is riches beyond belief in most third world countries?

[Gordongekko909]

Too little noticed has been the about-face the Bush administration has made since 9/11.

What can I say, having three thousand of your citizens suddenly killed will do things like that. Wake-up call, y'know.

From an indecisive tendency toward isolationism, and reliance for security on such Rube Goldberg devices as the anti-missile system, the imperial drive for world dominance has within months become the administration’s doctrine (though it has been more than a decade in the planning).

We seek to dominate the world? Then why are we letting the Afghans and Iraqis self-govern?

In that drive, constitutional protections are being eroded—as when the attorney general refers to “enemy combatants” to deny prisoners the right to legal counsel or even communication with their families.

Let's see: we pick them up overseas, where we're fighting wars. They're shooting at our troops. We capture them. How are these not "enemy combatants?"

[Pox]

Typical drivel from a liberal/progressive/socialist/communist.

[dead]

The author's named after two comedic geniuses, and writes like it.

Slapstick on the typewriter.

[Jaysun]

Typical liberal drivel, all of it. They never examine their idiotic assumptions (welfare works, government is good, rich people create poor people, etc) before opening their god**** mouths.

[FreeKeys]

If you don't respond to any of the posts we'll assume you're a careless hit-and-run artist.

[El Laton Caliente]

"War on liberals"??? I haven’t seen one shot lately...

The author sets up a straw man argument when he compares USA conservatives to European conservatives. USA conservatives embrace the US Constitution, a very libertarian governmental system. European conservatives are far more authoritarian.

True liberals in the USA are the Libertarian party.

What poses as liberals here are actually leftists and have more in common with the Socialists and Communists; they are far more totalitarian. They believe in government solutions to most/all social problems, government control of industry and social agendas, large and intrusive government; They more resemble the Fascists, National Socialists (Nazis) and Communists.

“The Bush Administration’s imperial foreign policy” is a joke right? I guess the last three decades of increasing terror attacks and the faunally of 9-11 went unnoticed by the author. Spending BILLIONS of dollars trying to set Iraq and Afghanistan on new paths with new governments means nothing…

“Proposed tax cuts—which would not only benefit the richest Americans” … a damned lie… The tax cuts stimulated the economy which is growing rapidly and has generated more tax revenue from the wealthy.

“Also strangle the welfare state” …one can only hope… The welfare state has failed. Since the sixties the “war on poverty” has only generated more poor and institutionalized the welfare class. Any thinking person would want to replace it with the “opportunity state”!!!

“An attack on cultural “decadence” and a demand for a return to religion” …is a bad thing? Hardly! Want to look for the cause of the decline and fall of any civilization?

“Business is an intimate partner of—almost indistinguishable from—government” is a laugh! Industry was being regulated and taxed into bankruptcy.

“Its aim seems to be to tear down all that remains of the New Deal.” Sounds good to me; Failed social programs should be done away with.

“From an indecisive tendency toward isolationism, and reliance for security on such Rube Goldberg devices as the anti-missile system, the imperial drive for world dominance has within months become the administration’s doctrine (though it has been more than a decade in the planning). In that drive, constitutional protections are being eroded—as when the attorney general refers to “enemy combatants” to deny prisoners the right to legal counsel or even communication with their families.” Oh my… Isolationist and World Dominance (LOL)… you can’t have it both ways. And a Rube Goldberg anti-missile system? With nuclear North Korea testing missiles that can hit the west coast and soon to be nuclear Iran purchasing missiles that can hit Europe, I think a defense might be a wise move!

Abbott Gleason needs to leave his office at Brown and breath a little fresh air. His brain is starved for oxygen!

[FreeKeys]

IBTZ!

[astoundedlib]

Good afternoon,
why's that...There are numerous reason i wouldn't post back...My opinion wouldn't be valuable on this subject as i don't really have one now! But it doesn't mean i don't care? I am reading religiously this thread to see what people have written... So if you have an opinion on the matter please express it!

Best regards.

[astoundedlib]

Good afternoon sir,
Thanks for that analysis, a bit more objective than the article. So in fact, no need for a war as the liberal system will die by it's own? if i understood well!

Best regards.

[theFIRMbss]

>The United States has achieved this power at the same time as—and in close connection with—a revolt against liberalism.

I study nuclear science
I love my classes
I got a crazy teacher, he wears dark glasses
Things are going great, and they're only getting better
I'm doing all right, getting good grades
The future's so bright, I gotta wear shades

I've got a job waiting for my graduation
Fifty thou a year -- buys a lot of beer
Things are going great, and they're only getting better
I'm doing all right, getting good grades
The future's so bright, I gotta wear shades

Well I'm heavenly blessed and worldly wise
I'm a peeping-tom techie with x-ray eyes
Things are going great, and they're only getting better
I'm doing all right, getting good grades
The future's so bright, I gotta wear shades

I study nuclear science
I love my classes
I got a crazy teacher, he wears dark glasses
Things are going great, and they're only getting better
I'm doing all right, getting good grades
The future's so bright, I gotta wear shades
I gotta wear shades, I gotta wear shades