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.
Oh, please, we've try this EVERY time a democrat wins an election.
Clinton put a LUXURY tax on the rich. Yachts and expensive boats were highly taxed, for example. Well, the rich aren't stupid, so they bought fewer boats. Result? Several yacht manufacturers driven out of business, and the craftsmen who worked for them, blue collar stalwarts who built ships and yachts generation after generation, passing down skills from father to son, unemployed.
It's so easy to be compassionate and concerned with other peoples money, but often extremely simplistic and the results are not intuitive toward the solution desired. Actions have consequences. Generally, people have to strive and work for things they want. Anything else is pampering.
LOL! :)
Jesus was right. Poor is a relative term. But it should be noted that in the United States the living standard of the poor keeps rising.
I tried to be obedient and get all the guffaws and harrumphs out of my system; but as I read, new ones kept emerging with accelerating frequency. Sorry!
If we had a per capita income of a million bucks a year, we'd still have people who sleep in cardboard boxes under freeway overpasses. Sometimes poverty is a lifestyle choice.
Thats true too. The homeless are not always people who just had terrible luck. A lot are schizophrenics that actually come from middle and upper class families and backgrounds but are just disturbed. A lot are drug addicts and alcoholics. And there are some who just had a string of terrible luck, however they are not anywhere near the majority. Those who are truly down on there luck could easily be helped by private charities except that bureaucrats keep taking more and more in taxes that people otherwise probably would have donated to charity.
Many homeless people are mentally ill or addicted to drugs and/or alcohol. Relatively few are people who just hit hard financial times for whatever reason.
Some are just people who aren't blessed with a decent IQ and are unliked by their families or anyone else.
Some I feel sorry for and some I don't. But nearly all of them have opted out of the social safety net that exists. If they're not staying at a shelter, it's almost always because they don't want to live by the rules in effect there.
LOL, another "Ingrate Society" program from the rats?
How much this time? $500 trillion?
Your friend is a windbag with poor grasp of reality, economically speaking ... basically a bunch of verbosity in order to praise, without being forced to actually cite anything specific:
"the accomplishments of the European models"
LOL! Tell us another good one!
The United States since 1980 has outperformed the major European nations economically and continues to grow faster with higher productivity gains, vastly higher employment gains, and lower unemplyoment rates.
Those few nations that have grown faster than the US (such as Ireland) did so using the supply-side model of lower taxes and lower Government spending to fuel their economic success.
I believe it was Nixon who said we are all Keynesians now. And proceeded to act like it, ultimately culminating in Wage/Price controls, WIN buttons and other nonsense. None of it worked. Which is why we got to 21% inflation under Carter, and $800 an oz. gold.
So no, I don't think Keynesian economics are good, or work. In fact, basically he supported Government and big banks working together to manipulate the money supply to stimulate growth. Greenspan is the biggest Keynesian ever, and the bitter fruit of what he has sown will not be long in being harvested, in my opinion.
A little bit of socialism is a like a little bit of the clap...
-ccm
Norway also owns billions of barrels of oil that it can pump out of the North Sea for $10 a barrel and sell for $60.
-ccm
Capital = ability to generate new wealth/resources. Every time a new production facility, mine, or any other wealth-producing entity is created, capital increases.
There is no fundamental limit to capital. Even the resources of the planet are not.
(Denny Crane: "I Don't Want To Socialize With A Pinko Liberal Democrat Commie. Say What You Like About Republicans. We Stick To Our Convictions. Even When We Know We're Dead Wrong.")
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.