Return to the Free Liberal Homepage

« John McCain: Unfit to Lead | Main | 09: Cause for Optimism? »

Warmongering vs. Socialism

Paul Gessing is very worried that a John McCain presidency would increase injustice and violence through continued (expanded?) war on the world. I am concerned about this, but I wonder if bad economic policy isn't worse, especially given the socialist leanings of the current Congress.

The Financial Times had this to say about the Democratic candidates on economics:

Barack Obama, now the favourite to secure both the nomination and the White House, once had intelligent things to say about trade. He has lately positioned himself as a hardliner among the hardliners...Mr Obama and the Democrats have been seized with a kind of intellectual and political cowardice. The implications of this lack of spine are grave – and extend beyond economics. The next Democratic administration promises to repair US alliances and standing in the world. A worthy aim. Yet its first act, the party says, will be to tell its closest neighbours that the rules they are all agreed to are defunct – and if they do not like it, tough luck.

/KDR

Posted by Kevin D. Rollins on February 28, 2008 07:08 PM |

Comments

Death seems worse than backsliding on trade.

First things first.

Posted by: Robert Capozzi | February 28, 2008 08:02 PM

Hmmm . . . . Fascinating.

All I know is that my friends on the Christian Left think that "free trade" is a terrible thing. They believe all free trade agreements are actually cover for legal arrangements which enable American companies to victimize the poor of other countries.

And I imagine that the entire Social Justice Movement part of the Left feels the same way seeing as I don't think there's any policy differences between the Christian Social Justice Left and the Plain-Old Social Justice Left.

So I am willing to bet they won't care that Obama's plan would make other countries angry. They'll say it will make the greedy exploitationist governments of other countries angry, but it will help the citizens of other countries.

(How'm I doing with this putting words in other people's mouths thing?)

Posted by: Micah Tillman | February 28, 2008 11:50 PM

It isn't just about other countries being *angry* at the United States.

It is is about diminishing our own interests. Interfering with free trade hurts Americans as well as people from other nations.

And establishing socialism in health care (a main goal of the Democrats) is possibly more dangerous in the long run to a liberal society than the current program of killing Arabs and people who look like them.

This is not to say that I endorse the current program for Iraq, because I do not. But I ask you to weigh the choice between war abroad and socialism at home in the only country left which could practically advance liberalism.

Between bad choices which one wlll most advance the liberal cause?

/KDR

Posted by: Kevin D. Rollins | February 29, 2008 02:17 AM

Erm, well you have to listen to what Obama says very precisely. He always frames his trade rhetoric in terms of making sure our trading partners meet our environmental and labor standards, not in the terms of the traditional protectionist who abhors free trade itself.

Now I understand that some libertarians will still be resistant even on these grounds, but it is still worth noting the very precise distinction.

Posted by: Jon | February 29, 2008 12:24 PM

Ummm.. ok, why do we care what the statists think again? Aren't the Libertarians nominating someone this year?

Posted by: Bo | March 1, 2008 01:45 AM

"Warmongering vs. Socialism" both are bad choices. I have been watching the Bernanke testimony before congress recently and I believe that this congress with a democratic president will impose taxes and regulations that will cripple our economy.

McCain is a moderate free market conservative and would be effective in preventing congress from turning the US into an EU style socialist state. He also would be a good commander-in-chief; however, he would continue the interventionist foreign policy that eventually will lead to a devastating attack on us by al-Qaeda.

One way or another we are in for a very difficult time for the next four years.

Posted by: Jim | March 5, 2008 12:11 AM

Post a comment

Free-for-all (frfr-ôl) -- n. A disorderly fight, argument, or competition in which everyone present participates.

from Dictionary.com



Advertisement
Free For All -- The Free Liberal Blog