Posted on 01/30/2018 9:23:26 AM PST by Sir Napsalot
It is very fortunate that we have this piece of paper, The Constitution, (even though nowadays progressives are trying very hard to tear it apart), from this "Global Liberal Order". Isn't it?
It is a contract between those who govern and those who consent to give them that power.
“Whether springing up in the U.S., Europe or Asia, populists are predictable. “
Whether springing up in the Soviet Union, Russia, or corrupt capitals of Europe, New World Order minions are predictable. And supported by low education, low achievement journalists.
There, fixed.
Populism is self-correction.
Populism is toilet-flushing.
Populism is taking the band aid off to see the sore.
Populism is paying attention to the population rather than political wranglers.
Only if one is afraid of the population does one fear populism.
>>>> Democracies rely on power-sharing arrangements, courts, legislatures and a free and independent media to check executive power. <<<<
I don’t know about the rest of the Global Liberal Order, but I do know we don’ have any functioning “power-sharing arrangements, courts, legislatures and a free and independent media” worth mentioning here in the States for quite a long time.
And these globalists only exist in tiny circles, and pretending they represent all that is good and wholesome, and the world (power-sharing arrangements, courts, legislatures and a free and independent media) is peachy.
He has it backwards. Populism will turn around the unsustainable tide of globalism. Populism is patriotism. On the current track the USA will be a de-industrialized Brazilian type 3rd world currupticracy in a very short time. Barring a military coup d'etat
Populism is people wanting self-determination.
Patriotism is the enemy of globalism.
In other words:
Mind your “betters” in the elites and media. They know so much more than you, that however stupid and destructive their orders appear, you must follow them without doubt!
Classic Progressivist propaganda.
“There is growing consensus that populism constitutes a grave threat to liberal democracy,”
Which is very different than regular democracy.
The problem with democracy is they will let any citizen participate.
Go populism! Globalism is a way to subjugate all.
“’true’ citizens”
I imagine Dr Fukuyama wouldn’t dream of withholding his home and personal property from me because I’m not a “true” owner of his stuff. I’d like all of it, please. Paper or plastic, no worries.
There are different types of populism. There’s the socialist “let’s get together and take stuff from the rich” which has been more common in history. Then there is the “join together to keep our property and freedom from being stolen by governments and multinationals” which is rising among tge people in tge US and Europe.
“Populism is poisoning the global liberal order” I can’t think of anything the “global liberal order” has done that merits an antidote. Can you?
Never, ever let power be consolidated. Power truly does corrupt, and needs to always be kept in check. Where do you go for political asylum when you are persecuted by a ‘global’ government? Economic power is also power that is corruptible, and should also not be allowed to be consolidated amongst fewer and fewer. Globalism is absolutely NOT progress. Anything that diminishes the importance of individuals and their right to self-determinism and freedom is the opposite of progress.
There are so many hypocrisies and ironies exhibited by those who think they are ‘progressive’, such that it's difficult to know where to start when pointing them out.
They say they are for ‘diversity’, but they push groupthink, actively suppress diversity of thought, and attack those who don't agree with them.
They say they are for ‘equality’, but they hang together in exclusive hierarchical enclaves (e.g. academic faculty, Congress, Hollywood, ‘elite’ media circles, Manhattan ‘high-society’, etc.) and push policies that make it more difficult for others to climb the socioeconomic ladder and improve their lives.
They say they are ‘for women’, but scoff at stay at home moms, and tolerate anti-woman behavior by those who are part of their ‘culture’ or protected groups (e.g. horribly misogynist lyrics by Jay Z and others, genital mutilation and suppression of women in Muslim societies, the rapes and assaults occurring across Europe, the actions of way too many in Hollywood - ignored until it could no longer be ignored, the attacks by Hillary against women victimized by her husband, the vicious and personal attacks against women who don't agree with them politically - like Sarah Huckabee-Sanders and Kelly Conway).
They say they are for the innocent, but they oppose any restrictions on abortion - including outlawing partial birth abortion and abortions beyond 20 weeks. The list goes on, and is a very long one.
Huzzah!
Erdogan doesn’t belong in the same list as Orban and Trump.
The phrase, global liberal order, implies a global order that includes more freedoms in the European sense. By and large, their aren’t enough freedoms in most nations. And the global order would see increases in both freedom and economic health with a return to a reasonable modicum of populism in the U.S.A., just as it has in the past.
“There is growing consensus that populism constitutes a grave threat to liberal democracy,”
_______________________________________________________
Notice how democracy becomes a bad word when it doesn’t lead to left-wing social policies. The reality is that democracy per se isn’t really valuable in and of itself. It’s just a means to creating a certain world order with a certain, narrow set of social values (namely moral indifference and a hefty dose of socialism to rehab society from the ill-effects of moral indifference).
There is, in fact, no discernible "global order". There are great noises made toward a set of common platitudes concerning peace, trade (Fukuyama has himself written a book about that, Trust), non-aggression, promulgation of health services, etc, etc, and when we bore into those international institutions entrusted with all of this we find the real progress in every arena to be the result of individual nations taking the initiative. Can anyone name a single war the UN has stopped? Does anyone remember who did the hard work of disaster relief after the 2004 Christmas earthquake and tsunami in Indonesia? Clue: it was the Indian, Australian, and U.S. navies, while UN representatives filled the five-star hotels and guarded locked-up warehouses full of needed supplies. Who failed in Rwanda? Who brought cholera to Haiti?
What bothers Fukuyama and his co-author isn't populism, it's nationalism, or rather a modern-day redefinition of that which lays the blame for war on what actually turns out to be the failure of globalist institutions, not any innate belligerence within the nations themselves. World War II, for example, was not so much a product of German nationalism as it was of the failure of international order that allowed the Nazis into power and failed to check its progress in conquest. What did finally check that progress was, yes, nationalism.
Globalists who insist on the innate superiority of globalist approaches to world order need badly to examine their premises and their visible results. Far from being a threat to that order, the "populism" Fukuyama describes may be its only hope.
Opening line: “Whether springing up in the U.S., Europe or Asia, populists are predictable. “.
Said derogatorily. Like SJWs *arent* predictable?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.