Liberalism

[GePap]

The question is not about whether one spread democracy or not, but HOW. I myself are rather warry of the ntoion that one state can, unliterally, invade another and then bring about democracy by itself (at this point, the US is, for all intents and purposes, alone in Iraq. )

[Ned]

GePap, but my point is that Democrats once were the party of active use of America's miliatry to advance democracy and human rights. Roosevelt did not sit passively by and let the Japanese run over China and IndoChina. He acted.

So to talk about liberalism and conservatism in the context of foreign policy is probably not the right dichotomy as not that long ago, liberal were activists on the foreign policy scene while today the neo-cons are the activists.

[Whaleboy]

Neoconservatives are yesterday's liberals

Indeed, thats why I say conservatism is a force constantly trying to live up to a new high watermark, whereas liberalism tends to be more consistent, albeit not american liberalism, rather traditionally it is based on more solid philosophies that contemporary pragmatism would seem to reject.

The question is not about whether one spread democracy or not, but HOW

A great question, theres an article on my site called "the Mill Limit" which may help. To cut a long story short, you can influence or impede. Impedence can be cut down into environmental/passive impedence, like, being who you are, taking what you need, and then active, so hitting someone, or declaring war on someone. Influence of course is like talking to them. The Mill Limit, as the apex of liberty, and the best balance between tyranny by majority and minority imo, prevents active impedence. However, if we believe in democracy etc, we can still advocate it, or maybe even create certain economic conditions within our legitimate power to make democracy etc more likely. The wisdom of that of course is dependent on each situation, but the Mill limit would prevent us from declaring war to impose our will on others.

Its also something of a moral relativist issue too - that philosophy holding that it is illogical to impose our subjective point of view onto another equally valid subjective view. Our believe in our society is not justification or objective evidence to warrant our forcing it onto others, thus that tenet of neocon is false.

[Ned]

I hardly think that liberalism is about the equality of philosophies. Such thinking is the absence of philosophy.

Moreover, if one is ultimately unwilling to declare war, one ultimately has no influence and will be ignored. Look what happened to Chamberlain.

[GePap]

MIlitary force is not the only method of foreign policy activism there is.

People forget how popular Chamberlain's move was. Few people were in any mood for a war over Czechoslovakia in 1938, or even in March 1939 when the rest of the country was inaded. If Chamberlain was so weak willed, he could have kept out once Poland was attacked, no? There was ntohing forcing him to guarantee Poland's territorial integrity.

[Az]

This is a weird article. I don't see it's point.

[Whaleboy]

I hardly think that liberalism is about the equality of philosophies

It isn't and I never said it was. The closest thing to that is the limitation of the implications of preference.

Cheers Azazel!