Posted on 02/27/2006 2:46:40 PM PST by Diana in Wisconsin
In a recent speech in Washington, Gen. Wesley Clark called for an American grand strategy to replace the Cold War strategy that held the world together for a half century after World War II. Good idea.
Even some Republicans are now privately admitting the failure of their party's grand strategy, which as I understand it involves instituting democracy in countries around the world, by persuasion and example or by force. President Bush says it is working. Events in Palestine, Iran, Iraq, Egypt and elsewhere suggest otherwise.
The second leg of Republicans' grand strategy is to shrink the role of government in people's lives. That, too, is failing. Budget deficits, trade deficits and the federal government's incompetent response to Katrina and rebuilding New Orleans, to say nothing of the Medicare Part D headaches, are evidence enough.
Democrats have been criticized for offering no alternative grand strategy. We might forgive them on two counts. Republican control of the White House and Congress virtually dooms any Democratic ideas. And if an idea has any merit, the other party would take credit for it a Washington custom.
I propose a grand strategy for the Democratic Party. Republicans, at least the far right wing, are not likely to appropriate it as their own. It is one that all but the most deluded religious zealots must embrace. Properly presented, it will sweep Democrats into power, probably for decades. It will do more for humanity than all the wars we might conceive in the cause of democracy. And it will cement our nation's role in 21st century history in the way that World War II and the Cold War sealed our place in the 20th.
The grand strategy? Simple: Eliminate poverty throughout the world.
Take a few minutes to get all the guffaws and harrumphs out of your system, then consider it seriously. Let's begin by agreeing that eliminating (or greatly reducing) poverty will do more than war to nurture democracy. Can we also agree that eliminating poverty will reduce resentment toward the United States among the people of Africa, South America and the Middle East (a leading cause of terrorism)? A couple of worthy objectives right there. And, oh yes, eliminating poverty is a dominant message of the Bible, if that means anything to you.
This will not cost the United States as much as you might think, if we follow the "teach a man to fish" school of charity. America's main contribution to the worldwide war on poverty would be our brains, our technology, our roll-up-our-sleeves problem-solving ability. We know that, properly utilized and husbanded, the Earth's resources are adequate to support its current population and then some. It would be America's role to provide the know-how to make that happen. And where current knowledge falls short, we would find ways, using the vast research resources of our universities and corporations.
In the course of finding those technologies and practices, we will find new products and services to export, putting Americans to work and generating profits for American companies. It should be noted that the first poverty to be eliminated would be here in the United States.
Eliminating poverty would solve environmental problems including global warming because many of the solutions are the same. It would involve some sacrifice on the part of American citizens. But hey, shouldn't we have been doing that all along? We're not talking sack cloth and ashes.
Spend a bit more on education and energy, medical and agricultural research; a bit less on automobiles and extravagant lifestyles. Increase our foreign aid to the level of other industrialized countries. Agree that all humans deserve food, shelter, medical care and a shot at the good life.
Skillful budgeting and coaxing other developed countries into this effort must be parts of the grand strategy, talents present day Republicans seem to lack.
If there is a leader in the Democratic Party, let us hear him or her spell out a grand strategy that Clark called for. If it's not a war on poverty, then something else. If there is a Republican leader out there with a bold vision, let's hear it.
Please, anything but the childish, petty, destructive partisan squabbling and nibbling at the edges of horrendous problems that make all thinking Americans want to put a foot right through the TV screen.
Precisely. Not in terms of actual currency those're just abstract numbers attached to represent a value and fluctuate daily. But in terms of actual value, yes.
A lot of naturally occuring acid augmented with liberal applications of booze???
Thank you for the verses.
Kinda makes my point. Certainly we must help the needy. I just don't recall anything about "eliminating poverty."
Yes, I'm sure that corrupt dictators will use our aid for the benefit of their people, and not send any of it to their private swiss bank accounts......
/channeling Bono
Then how do eeconomies grow?
Wow another presentation of the lefts solution for any problem that comes up: worldwide socialism. Keep trying guys! One of these centuries somebody will buy it. Idiots.
There are many reasons why people are poor. Often, the problem is not a lack of wealth, and adding wealth will not solve the problem.
That isn't to suggest that one shouldn't try to good in cases where one actually can do some good, but throwing money at poor people will in many cases simply feed the underlying pathologies without really doing anything to help them.
Is Bill SpaceCadet in Jr High School? I think I wrote something similar to this back then.
Many countries have a lot of capital in forms that don't show up on balance sheets. A person who is trained in the practice of medicine and has some number of years before retirement is such an asset. It's possible for socialism to harvest capital and turn it into present-day revenue. Such behavior will work wonderfully as long as there remains capital to be harvested. But when the capital dries up, things will get very bad.
The situation could be viewed as akin to a large store. One day, a new owner takes over and decides to cut prices by 25% and offer everyone a 25% pay raise. The only thing he stops doing is buying as much inventory as he's selling. Until he runs out of product, his employers and customers will think he's much better than the former owner. When the inventory runs out, everything will go kaput. But until then, everything will seem wonderful.
I felt the same way.
LLS
"It is demonstrably, patently impossible to 'eliminate poverty thoughout the world'."
I beg to differ, one could exterminate the people living in poverty. Evil, but possible nonetheless.
We know that neo-Marxists the world over love the poor. They are working so hard to make more of them.
The water is laced with LSD and PCP............
What a nutcase!!!
The only picture I get is you babbling.
Capital has increased vastly on a global basis since 1776, when Adam Smith penned "The Wealth of Nations" and set towards independence. Since then, the US has increased its wealth the way Adam Smith says its happens - by increasing our productive capacity. In doing so, we tore nobody down, although on a relative basis we are now #1. Yet every nation you mention is incomparably richer than it was back then, and is also richer than a mere 30 years ago.
Maybe I was confusing, but I was agreeing with you :)
lilliput
Maybe I was confusing. I was thanking you for your help. LOL.
It must be somewhere near the scriptures that say "The poor will always be among you" and "He that will not work, neither should he eat."
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.