Thanks Richard, for the article. I dare say that Charles Krauthammer
and Richard Wolff would not see eye to eye.
For many years I have struggled with labels. Liberal versus
conservative especially confuse me. While I tell folks that I am a
Radical Progressive, I actually am a squeaky tight fiscal
conservative. We do have a mortgage on our home, but we have no
credit card debt. If we can't afford it, we set aside and do without
until we can afford it. While I understand that our government cannot
operate like our personal household, there are a number of steps I
would suggest to our Federal Government, as a fiscal conservative.
First, we need to do as my wife does, put together lists. One list
would be to identify our priorities. Another list might be to develop
time frames for completion of those projects we consider to be our
priorities. Another list might be a breakdown of costs for these
projects. And don't forget the list of additions that have come about
due to the completion of the first projects.
In our house, we look at our annual total income. We deduct the
constant expenses, setting aside accounts for emergencies or a new
vehicle, or house repairs. We deduct a set amount for fun...dining
out, vacations, or entertaining large groups like the upcoming 90th
birthday bash we are planning for Cathy's mother.
When all is said and done, we take a look at what remains in the bank,
and divide it for the various projects.
To my thinking, that is neither being Liberal or Conservative. It is
just good money management and planning.
But what happens when the list of priorities drawn up by the
government is not anything like the one drawn up by the citizens? For
example, we need several trillions of dollars to rebuild our
infrastructure, upgrade our schools, provide decent health care, and
create jobs. But the federal government has a list that calls for
trillions of dollars to build guns, planes, war ships, tanks, drones,
upgrade our nuclear stock, and maintain our many bases around the
world. These two lists are so vastly different that we must first
figure out how to determine which list is the more urgent. It seems
to me that the well being of our citizens is neither a Liberal or a
Conservative issue. If we decide to invest in a huge military budget
at the expense of our homeland needs, then we have made a declaration
to the world that our military might comes ahead of our citizens
needs.
Such positions are neither Liberal nor Conservative. They are
determined upon need. Whose need? Whoever has the most power to push
their list ahead of all others. Currently we have decided, by virtue
of the powerful control of corporate needs, to place the working class
priority list below that of the international corporation list. That
decision is neither Liberal nor Conservative. What it is, is a power
struggle. Some working class folks will throw in with the corporate
list, believing they can better themselves in so doing. Some working
class folk form opposition groups and believe they can force their
list past that of the corporations. We don't need labels to determine
which list a person is supporting.
I am a Working Man, the son of a Working Man, and back through the
years to that first Jarvis who broke the ground of West Virginia back
in the early 1700's, even before it was called West Virginia. I know
the priority list I support, because it serves the needs of my people.
It is neither Liberal nor Conservative.
We need to get off this kick of labeling our beliefs and then reacting
to the label instead of what is really going on. Like, for example,
President Obama was given the Nobel Peace Prize, thus labeling him the
Prince of Peace. But he's never demonstrated that he is a lover of
peace. Sure, he talks a great talk, but his actions speak loudest.
Does it matter if he is a Liberal or a Conservative? He has declared,
by his actions, that he supports the priority list of the
corporations. By my very old fashioned definition, I could not even
call Obama a Democrat. During the Eisenhower administration, Clinton
would have been a Republican Hawk. During the years around 1776, he
probably would have been supporting King George.
But there I go doing exactly what I was protesting in the first place.
Labeling.
Carl Jarvis
On 5/29/16, Richard Driscoll <llocsirdsr@xxxxxxx> wrote:
All:
Charles Krauthammer has been interesting reading for me for quite some
time. While I lived in the Fort Worth Area his columns appeared only in
the WSJ and then only intermittently. Since moving to ABQ I note his
columns appear more frequently in various news sources that are readily
available to me.
The following article is appealing to me by reason of the clarity of the
writing and the simplicity of the wording.
Hope you all enjoy reading same.
Richard
http://www.deseretnews.com/article/865655249/A-dose-of-coldhearted-realism-is-always-welcome.html?pg=all
Charles Krauthammer: A dose of coldhearted realism is always welcome
By Charles Krauthammer
Published: Sunday, May 29 2016 12:10 a.m. MDT
Updated: 14 hours ago
Share1 Share0 Tweet1 0 0
U.S. President Barack Obama greets people in the audience after speaking
to Vietnamese young people during the Young Southeast Asian Leaders
Initiative (YSEALI) town hall meeting at the GEM Center in Ho Chi Minh
City, Vietnam, Wednesday, May 25, 2016. (AP Photo/Carolyn Kaster)
Carolyn Kaster, AP
How do you distinguish a foreign policy "idealist" from a "realist," an
optimist from a pessimist? Ask one question: Do you believe in the arrow
of history? Or to put it another way, do you think history is cyclical
or directional?
WASHINGTON — How do you distinguish a foreign policy "idealist" from a
"realist," an optimist from a pessimist? Ask one question: Do you
believe in the arrow of history? Or to put it another way, do you think
history is cyclical or directional? Are we condemned to do the same
thing over and over, generation after generation — or is there hope for
some enduring progress in the world order?
For realists, generally conservative, history is an endless cycle of
clashing power politics. The same patterns repeat. Only the names and
places change. The best we can do in our own time is to defend
ourselves, managing instability and avoiding catastrophe. But expect
nothing permanent, no essential alteration in the course of human affairs.
The idealists believe otherwise. They believe the international system
can eventually evolve out of its Hobbesian state of nature into
something more humane and hopeful. What is usually overlooked is that
this hopefulness for achieving a higher plane of global comity comes in
two flavors — one liberal, one conservative.
The liberal variety (as practiced, for example, by the Bill Clinton
administration) believes that the creation of a dense web of treaties,
agreements, transnational institutions and international organizations
(like the U.N., NGOs, the World Trade Organization) can give substance
to a cohesive community of nations that would, in time, ensure order and
stability.
The conservative view (often called neoconservative and dominant in the
George W. Bush years) is that the better way to ensure order and
stability is not through international institutions, which are flimsy
and generally powerless, but through the spread of democracy. Because,
in the end, democracies are inherently more inclined to live in peace.
Liberal internationalists count on globalization, neoconservatives on
democratization to get us to the sunny uplands of international harmony.
But what unites them is the belief that such uplands exist and are
achievable. Both believe in the perfectibility, if not of man, then of
the international system. Both believe in the arrow of history.
For realists, this is a comforting delusion that gives high purpose to
international exertions where none exists. Sovereign nations remain in
incessant pursuit of power and self-interest. The pursuit can be carried
out more or less wisely. But nothing fundamentally changes.
President Barack Obama is a classic case study in foreign policy
idealism. Indeed, one of his favorite quotations is about the arrow of
history: "The arc of the moral universe is long, but it bends toward
justice." He has spent nearly eight years trying to advance that arc of
justice. Hence his initial "apology tour," that burst of confessional
soul-searching abroad about America and its sins, from slavery to the
loss of our moral compass after 9/11. Friday's trip to Hiroshima
completes the arc.
Unfortunately, with "justice" did not come peace. The policies that
followed — appeasing Vladimir Putin, the Iranian mullahs, the butchers
of Tiananmen Square and lately the Castros — have advanced neither
justice nor peace. On the contrary. The consequent withdrawal of
American power, that agent of injustice or at least arrogant overreach,
has yielded nothing but geopolitical chaos and immense human suffering.
(See Syria.)
But now an interesting twist. Two terms as president may not have
disabused Obama of his arc-of-justice idealism (see above: Hiroshima
visit), but they have forced upon him at least one policy of hardheaded,
indeed hardhearted, realism. On his Vietnam trip this week, Obama
accepted the reality of an abusive dictatorship while announcing a
warming of relations and the lifting of the U.S. arms embargo, thereby
enlisting Vietnam as a full partner in the containment of China.
This follows the partial return of the U.S. military to the Philippines,
another element of the containment strategy. Indeed, the Trans-Pacific
Partnership itself is less about economics than geopolitics, creating a
Pacific Rim cordon around China.
There's no idealism in containment. It is raw, soulless realpolitik. No
moral arc. No uplifting historical arrow. In fact, it is the same thing
all over again, a recapitulation of Truman's containment of Russia in
the late 1940s. Obama is doing the same, now with China.
He thus leaves a double legacy. His arc-of-justice aspirations, whatever
their intention, leave behind tragic geopolitical and human wreckage.
Yet this belated acquiescence to realpolitik, laying the foundations for
a new containment, will be an essential asset in addressing this
century's coming central challenge, the rise of China.
I don't know — no one knows — if history has an arrow. Which is why a
dose of coldhearted realism is always welcome. Especially from Obama.
Charles Krauthammer's email address is letters@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
<mailto:letters@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Charles Krauthammer: A dose of coldhearted realism is always welcome
<http://www.deseretnews.com/article/print/865655249/Charles-Krauthammer-A-dose-of-coldhearted-realism-is-always-welcome.html>
* Font [+] <javascript:void();> [-] <javascript:void();>
*
3 Comments »
<http://www.deseretnews.com/user/comments/865655249/Charles-Krauthammer-A-dose-of-coldhearted-realism-is-always-welcome.html>
By Charles Krauthammer
Published: Sunday, May 29 2016 12:10 a.m. MDT
Updated: 14 hours ago
Share//1 Share//0 Tweet//1 //0 //0
<http://img.deseretnews.com/images/article/midres2/1699367/1699367.jpg>
U.S. President Barack Obama greets people in the audience after speaking
to Vietnamese young people during the Young Southeast Asian Leaders
Initiative (YSEALI) town hall meeting at the GEM Center in Ho Chi Minh
City, Vietnam, Wednesday, May 25, 2016. (AP Photo/Carolyn Kaster)
Carolyn Kaster, AP
Enlarge photo»
<http://img.deseretnews.com/images/article/midres2/1699367/1699367.jpg>
Charles Krauthammer
Charles Krauthammer
<http://www.deseretnews.com/author/88/Charles-Krauthammer.html>
Summary
How do you distinguish a foreign policy "idealist" from a "realist," an
optimist from a pessimist? Ask one question: Do you believe in the arrow
of history? Or to put it another way, do you think history is cyclical
or directional?
WASHINGTON — How do you distinguish a foreign policy "idealist" from a
"realist," an optimist from a pessimist? Ask one question: Do you
believe in the arrow of history? Or to put it another way, do you think
history is cyclical or directional? Are we condemned to do the same
thing over and over, generation after generation — or is there hope for
some enduring progress in the world order?
For realists, generally conservative, history is an endless cycle of
clashing power politics. The same patterns repeat. Only the names and
places change. The best we can do in our own time is to defend
ourselves, managing instability and avoiding catastrophe. But expect
nothing permanent, no essential alteration in the course of human affairs.
The idealists believe otherwise. They believe the international system
can eventually evolve out of its Hobbesian state of nature into
something more humane and hopeful. What is usually overlooked is that
this hopefulness for achieving a higher plane of global comity comes in
two flavors — one liberal, one conservative.
The liberal variety (as practiced, for example, by the Bill Clinton
administration) believes that the creation of a dense web of treaties,
agreements, transnational institutions and international organizations
(like the U.N., NGOs, the World Trade Organization) can give substance
to a cohesive community of nations that would, in time, ensure order and
stability.
The conservative view (often called neoconservative and dominant in the
George W. Bush years) is that the better way to ensure order and
stability is not through international institutions, which are flimsy
and generally powerless, but through the spread of democracy. Because,
in the end, democracies are inherently more inclined to live in peace.
Liberal internationalists count on globalization, neoconservatives on
democratization to get us to the sunny uplands of international harmony.
But what unites them is the belief that such uplands exist and are
achievable. Both believe in the perfectibility, if not of man, then of
the international system. Both believe in the arrow of history.
For realists, this is a comforting delusion that gives high purpose to
international exertions where none exists. Sovereign nations remain in
incessant pursuit of power and self-interest. The pursuit can be carried
out more or less wisely. But nothing fundamentally changes.
President Barack Obama is a classic case study in foreign policy
idealism. Indeed, one of his favorite quotations is about the arrow of
history: "The arc of the moral universe is long, but it bends toward
justice." He has spent nearly eight years trying to advance that arc of
justice. Hence his initial "apology tour," that burst of confessional
soul-searching abroad about America and its sins, from slavery to the
loss of our moral compass after 9/11. Friday's trip to Hiroshima
completes the arc.
Unfortunately, with "justice" did not come peace. The policies that
followed — appeasing Vladimir Putin, the Iranian mullahs, the butchers
of Tiananmen Square and lately the Castros — have advanced neither
justice nor peace. On the contrary. The consequent withdrawal of
American power, that agent of injustice or at least arrogant overreach,
has yielded nothing but geopolitical chaos and immense human suffering.
(See Syria.)
But now an interesting twist. Two terms as president may not have
disabused Obama of his arc-of-justice idealism (see above: Hiroshima
visit), but they have forced upon him at least one policy of hardheaded,
indeed hardhearted, realism. On his Vietnam trip this week, Obama
accepted the reality of an abusive dictatorship while announcing a
warming of relations and the lifting of the U.S. arms embargo, thereby
enlisting Vietnam as a full partner in the containment of China.
This follows the partial return of the U.S. military to the Philippines,
another element of the containment strategy. Indeed, the Trans-Pacific
Partnership itself is less about economics than geopolitics, creating a
Pacific Rim cordon around China.
There's no idealism in containment. It is raw, soulless realpolitik. No
moral arc. No uplifting historical arrow. In fact, it is the same thing
all over again, a recapitulation of Truman's containment of Russia in
the late 1940s. Obama is doing the same, now with China.
He thus leaves a double legacy. His arc-of-justice aspirations, whatever
their intention, leave behind tragic geopolitical and human wreckage.
Yet this belated acquiescence to realpolitik, laying the foundations for
a new containment, will be an essential asset in addressing this
century's coming central challenge, the rise of China.
I don't know — no one knows — if history has an arrow. Which is why a
dose of coldhearted realism is always welcome. Especially from Obama.
Charles Krauthammer's email address is letters@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
<mailto:letters@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus
