Dream on America: World Increasingly Rejecting US Model

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by St Leo

Originally posted by Straybow
This whole "threat to world peace" is nonsense. These are the same fools (the Commies' "useful idiots") who thought the US was a threat to world peace when we were holding the line against the Soviets while they sent their troops into Hungary, Poland and Afghanistan

Bush is a threat to world peace. America is just a tool at his disposal.

As a feminist and an advocate of human rights, I would have rather seen the USSR take over Afghanistan. USSR's record in that category is spotty, but far better than that of the subsequent Taliban regime.

without the Soviet takeover, the Taliban would probably never have emerged. You are aware of the chronology, arent you?

[realpolitic]

Two divergent views of what a Democracy should be - America chose captalistic, Europe chose socialistic, along with America's model came militalarism, and "rugged individualism", which devoled into egotism, and selfishness. Additionally, Europe's model has created more prosperity.

It looks like the more humane model is also more viable, and is becoming the accepted one. This is the silver lining in the neocons agenda: they've bungled things so badly, they've given aggression a bad name!

[Agathon]

Kagan and his ilk make me laugh: they're geeks who get hard ons for military power and cannot but see everything in terms of physical force, despite being weedy little losers themselves.

You know the type, the skinny dork at your school who collected knives and worshipped the SAS.

"America protects Europe"

From who?

Iran?

Russia?

The Russians have better things to do now. The lesson of the 20th century is that large scale wars are over. The world is simply too informationally and economically integrated to let this happen. Moreover democracy is spreading quite rapidly in a way that doesn't depend on anything America does. In fact the real source of democratic change comes from Iran of all places, where people power overthrew a tyrannical regime (but folk didn't get quite what they bargained for).

This happened again in the Phillippines and unsuccessfully in China and then successfully in Eastern Europe. Since then, video of mobs overturning authoritarian governments have become increasingly frequent.

None of this has anything to do with the US. It's only American hubris that makes them believe so.

[Imran Siddiqui]

So Europe could have dealt with Milosevic by itself with it's soft diplomacy? The hard diplomacy of the US merges well with the soft diplomacy of the EU to produce a strong Western power. It worked best during the Clinton Administration.

Kagan is more right in his assessment than Moravcsik. By far.

[GePap]

Originally posted by lord of the mark


Its not impossible that the US will emulate social democracy ( I would vote for that) but i hardly think that the world in 2005 is more friendly to social democracy than the world in 1965 was, nor do i think the world in 2040 will be much closer. But if it is, thats kewl.

It has nothing to do with Aggies 2 minute hate.

I have not commented, nor do I care to comment on Aggies statements- this is about the Newsweek piece and the point of it:

Iraq has shown the weakness of American Military power- being able to unseat some tinpoint dictator is fine and dandy, but our inability to then control the area puts the whole militarist enterprise into deep question.

So if our military might is not the sound basis of American power, what wil. This goes directly to Bush's speach- if you honeslt yhtink when he says freedom and liberty 49 times he really doesn;t care if its a social democracy, or the American model, I think you are higly naive. Look at the US administration of Iraq under Bremmer- the monetary and labor policies instituted, the idea that Iraqis in the future would have a flat tax, or a top rate of 15% and other such things done by the US administrators show that the neocons don;t just care about spreading political liberty to chose whatever system the people want, but A particular model, the conservative economic US model. BUt in a world that refuses this model victory for the Bush team becomes harder and harder.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Agathon
. The lesson of the 20th century is that large scale wars are over. The world is simply too informationally and economically integrated to let this happen.

LOTM - the question is how to deal with the large parts of the world that arent integrated.


Moreover democracy is spreading quite rapidly in a way that doesn't depend on anything America does. In fact the real source of democratic change comes from Iran of all places, where people power overthrew a tyrannical regime (but folk didn't get quite what they bargained for).

This happened again in the Phillippines

LOTM - the PI looked to Iran as a model, and not to Japan, which was democratized by the US?

and unsuccessfully in China and then successfully in Eastern Europe.

LOTM Funny how people like Lech Walesa and Vaclav Havel have a higher opinion of the US than you do.

Since then, video of mobs overturning authoritarian governments have become increasingly frequent.

None of this has anything to do with the US. It's only American hubris that makes them believe so.

LOTM - So why didnt you join in the Ukraine threads, when Serb and Vagabond said everything thats happened in the Ukraine (and Georgia) was the result of US action?

LOTM - by the way, i agree that democracy has its own momentum - whether outside pushes can help is another question.

[Flubber]

I think its obvious that there are many more examples of successful democracies than the US. Its only normal and natural that people emulate the policies of those that better fit their own society.

I was unsuprised to see Americans think the US is much more positively viewed than it is. All pretty typical stuff.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by GePap


I have not commented, nor do I care to comment on Aggies statements- this is about the Newsweek piece and the point of it:

Iraq has shown the weakness of American Military power- being able to unseat some tinpoint dictator is fine and dandy, but our inability to then control the area puts the whole militarist enterprise into deep question.


So if our military might is not the sound basis of American power, what wil

LOTM - im not going to get dragged into a debate about the current situation in Iraq, or the mistakes that have been made.

. This goes directly to Bush's speach- if you honeslt yhtink when he says freedom and liberty 49 times he really doesn;t care if its a social democracy, or the American model, I think you are higly naive. Look at the US administration of Iraq under Bremmer- the monetary and labor policies instituted, the idea that Iraqis in the future would have a flat tax, or a top rate of 15% and other such things done by the US administrators show that the neocons don;t just care about spreading political liberty to chose whatever system the people want, but A particular model, the conservative economic US model. BUt in a world that refuses this model victory for the Bush team becomes harder and harder.

1. They were trying (competently or not) to rebuild an economy. They COULDNT wait till an Iraqi govt was in place to print a currency, impose taxes, etc. Given the rot of the Saddam regime there was no reason to try to maintain the exact policies of that regime. Given that they therefore had to impose policies, its hardly surprising that they chose according to their own biases. I do note that they maintained govt healthcare provision, hardly consonant with their domestic model.

2. Do you honestly think Dubya doesnt insist on the full credit to the US for the liberation of Germany? Does he refuse to attend Dday celebrations? yet we all know Germany, Benelux are social democracies. Wanting to spread your own system is one thing - caring about it is another thing.

Do you think Bush and his pals dont think Israel is a democracy? Does Bush spare praise for Tony Blair?
Would Bush be pleased if Michael Howard won? Would he be displeased if the French Socialists won?

I honestly dont think Bush gives a damn what the marginal tax rates are anywhere outside the US.

[GePap]

Originally posted by lord of the mark
1. They were trying (competently or not) to rebuild an economy. They COULDNT wait till an Iraqi govt was in place to print a currency, impose taxes, etc. Given the rot of the Saddam regime there was no reason to try to maintain the exact policies of that regime. Given that they therefore had to impose policies, its hardly surprising that they chose according to their own biases. I do note that they maintained govt healthcare provision, hardly consonant with their domestic model.

Yes, they did keep unioversal healthcrae, thought of course, the only healtcare system being public, there was not much they could do with that to privitize without causing riots, now couldn't they? As for the bias bit- when trying to run a state in disrepair, perhaps this is NOT the time to set up theoretical policies as opposed to tried and true and working policies? At the least it shows incompetence.

2. Do you honestly think Dubya doesnt insist on the full credit to the US for the liberation of Germany? Does he refuse to attend Dday celebrations? yet we all know Germany, Benelux are social democracies. Wanting to spread your own system is one thing - caring about it is another thing.

Sorry, but this is a strawman if I ever saw one. Germany already had a long experience with parlimentary governance and a strong independent bureaucracy, so forth. Second, that Germany is a social democracy was a policy choice by Germans in the many decades AFTER the end of WW2, post 1950.

Do you think Bush and his pals dont think Israel is a democracy? Does Bush spare praise for Tony Blair?
Would Bush be pleased if Michael Howard won? Would he be displeased if the French Socialists won?

Well, yes, he would be displeased if the French socialists won, just as we were displeased when Chavez won in Venezuela. As for whether they think something is a democracy or not is irrelevant, because they are also trying to spread their economic ideals, hence the approval of the Netanyahu economic policies and increasing privatization of its economy, and constant talk about anemic Europe. Rummy's "old Europe" comment came from somewhere-don't kid yourself.

I honestly dont think Bush gives a damn what the marginal tax rates are anywhere outside the US.

And i honestly think you are wrong. BUt then thats what this argument is about.

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by Atahualpa
How's my "analysis"? Nobody ever replies to my posts.

It's your fault: you post well thought-out analyses in troll threads. Why would anybody reply?

[Imran Siddiqui]

Second, that Germany is a social democracy was a policy choice by Germans in the many decades AFTER the end of WW2, post 1950.

Not really. Germany also has a strong tradition of a large social safety net, at least comparitively to other Western countries. Before WW1, Social Democrats were a large force in the Reichstag (with Rosa Luxembourg) leading the charge.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by GePap

Do you think Bush and his pals dont think Israel is a democracy? Does Bush spare praise for Tony Blair?
Would Bush be pleased if Michael Howard won? Would he be displeased if the French Socialists won?

Well, yes, he would be displeased if the French socialists won

LOTM given that it would be a humiliation to Chirac, I dont think so.

, just as we were displeased when Chavez won in Venezuela.

Cause of his anti-US foreign policy. and cause the US right has an obsession with leftism in Latin America, for deep historical reasons. The CIA worked quite well with social democrats in Europe during the cold war.

LOTM As for whether they think something is a democracy or not is irrelevant, because they are also trying to spread their economic ideals, hence the approval of the Netanyahu economic policies and increasing privatization of its economy,

Well, as a more successful Israeli economy could mean less need for US aid, thats a different matter. In any case the Israeli economy remains far more socialist than say, Britains. Or even Germany's I think.

LOTM and constant talk about anemic Europe. Rummy's "old Europe" comment came from somewhere-don't kid yourself.

Poland and Czecho dont follow Euro on social welfare? Rummy was just trying to shake off the accusation that his policy had no support in europe. Which doesnt mean he doesnt think social welfare leeds to anemia - why wouldnt he then want MORE socialism in europe - surely he doesnt want france and germany to be STRONGER, does he?


And i honestly think you are wrong. BUt then thats what this argument is about.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Spiffor

It's your fault: you post well thought-out analyses in troll threads. Why would anybody reply?

thanks for the kick in the pants - how foolish of me to let the troll get to me.

[GePap]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui

Second, that Germany is a social democracy was a policy choice by Germans in the many decades AFTER the end of WW2, post 1950.

Not really. Germany also has a strong tradition of a large social safety net, at least comparitively to other Western countries. Before WW1, Social Democrats were a large force in the Reichstag (with Rosa Luxembourg) leading the charge.

Wow, so you just make LoTM's arguement even less relevant. Thanks.

[Dinner]

Originally posted by GePap
The US is not only interested in democracy, but in spreading the US system- hence the endless dire talk about how Europe is going to fall apart economically because their welfare state.

I don't know any serious economist who thinks it will fall apart but what most of them do believe is that the high taxes and high regulation of that model will deliver lower average growth rates for those countries. That means their relative strength compared to more dynamic countries will continue to fall, their standard of living will slowly be passed by the more dynamic countries (or the countries which are already ahead of them will pull even further ahead), and slowly their national debt burden will become greater. Good management can minimize these impacts and luck can help greatly (Norway finding oil) as can avoiding unnecisary expenses like wars.

In the end it is a less dynamic model with slower average grow rates that means countries with more dynamic models will simply have the luxury of being able to afford higher margins of error to still reach the same goals.