Is America turning left?

[flashl]

Aug 9th 2007
From The Economist

Probably—but not in the way many foreigners (and some Americans) hope


FOR George Bush, the presidency is becoming a tragic tale of unintended consequences. In foreign policy, the man who sought to transform Iraq, the Middle East and America's reputation has indeed had revolutionary effects, though not the ones he was aiming for. Now something similar seems to be happening in domestic politics.

<snip>

Be careful what you wish for

So some sort of shift seems to be under way. Would it be a change for the better?

<snip>

In terms of foreign policy, America's allies, especially in Europe, would also be unwise to start celebrating, for two reasons. First, some of the changes that would stem from a more Democratic America would be unwelcome. The Democrats are moving to the left not just on health care, but also on trade; and a more protectionist America would soon make the world's poor regret Mr Bush's passing. Similarly, many Europeans may yearn for a less interventionist America; but an isolationist superpower could be much more frightening.

Second, America, even if it shifts to the left, will still be a conservative force on the international stage. Mrs Clinton might be portrayed as a communist on talk radio in Kansas, but set her alongside France's Nicolas Sarkozy, Germany's Angela Merkel, Britain's David Cameron or any other supposed European conservative, and on virtually every significant issue Mrs Clinton is the more right-wing.

<snip>

http://www.economist.com/opinion/displaystory.cfm?story_id=9621579

---

Does it appear to you that our European cousins want a Democrat of the DLC flavor?

[Vincardog]

1. Fuck the DLC.

[MADem]

3. Obama's DLC? They went after him, too... nt

[LWolf]

21. In all but name, if you study his positions. n/t

[Chipper Chat]

5. Holy Joe Gang of 14 Lieberman has so much dry powder stored

the whole state of Connecticut could blow any minute now.

[MADem]

2. Yes. And not only protectionist, but there's a possibility of isolationism

(which would please the Pat Buchanans of the world...) as well.

The ECONOMIST makes no secret that they want a Reaganesque Republican, but they see the handwriting on the wall. I personally think they're carrying GOP water with the portrayal of Clinton, fostering the theme that she's the GOP's worst nightmare. However, they don't spare the horses for Battling Barack either. And poor Edwards, et. al., don't even get named--they just get "lumped" for the purposes of an international audience.

Knowing where these guys are coming from, and we do know that they're the Overseas Subsidiary of the GOP, the last four paragraphs are interesting, nonetheless.

Be careful what you wish for
So some sort of shift seems to be under way. Would it be a change for the better? The Economist has never made any secret of its preference for the Republican Party's individualistic “western” wing rather than the moralistic “southern” one that Mr Bush has come to typify. It is hard to imagine Ronald Reagan sponsoring a federal amendment banning gay marriage or limiting federal funding for stem-cell research. Yet Mr Bush's departure hardly guarantees a move back to the centre. Social liberals like Mr Giuliani and Arnold Schwarzenegger are in a minority on the right. On the one issue where Mr Bush fought the intolerant wing of his party, immigration, the nativists won—and perhaps lost the Latino vote for a generation.

In terms of foreign policy, America's allies, especially in Europe, would also be unwise to start celebrating, for two reasons. First, some of the changes that would stem from a more Democratic America would be unwelcome. The Democrats are moving to the left not just on health care, but also on trade; and a more protectionist America would soon make the world's poor regret Mr Bush's passing. Similarly, many Europeans may yearn for a less interventionist America; but an isolationist superpower could be much more frightening.

Second, America, even if it shifts to the left, will still be a conservative force on the international stage. Mrs Clinton might be portrayed as a communist on talk radio in Kansas, but set her alongside France's Nicolas Sarkozy, Germany's Angela Merkel, Britain's David Cameron or any other supposed European conservative, and on virtually every significant issue Mrs Clinton is the more right-wing. She also mentions God more often than the average European bishop. As for foreign policy, the main Democratic candidates are equally staunch in their support of Israel; none of them has ruled out attacking Iran; Mr Obama might take a shot at Pakistan; and few of them want to cede power to multilateral organisations.

One finding that stands out in the polls is that most Americans distrust government strongly. Forty years ago they turned against a leftish elite trying to boss them around; now they have had to endure a right-wing version. In democracies political revolutions usually become obvious only in retrospect. In 1968, with America stuck in another bruising war, few liberals saw Richard Nixon's southern strategy as part of a long-term turn to the right. All that was clear then was that most Americans urgently wanted a change of direction. That is also true today.

[fujiyama]

13. Oh man...

For the Economist to call anyone "elite"...What "leftish elite" are they even talking about?

Seriously, most Europeans (and I'm talking about average every day Europeans) don't give a fuck what America does inside its own borders. Yeah, they are appalled by how fucked up certain things are here (like the death penalty, and Katrina, and gun violence), but I'd tell the Economist, most Europeans are more freaked out about the US actually invading countries....and then being told that they should get behind us, or fuck off...

I think the Economist, as many self described intellectuals often do, talk a lot, but ultimately say very little useful (kind of reminds of Tom Friedman). This editorial is interesting, but I think they expose their pro corporate agenda.

And it is possible the US is getting more protectionist in certain ways. Europe has had more protectionist and PRO CONSUMER policies for years. Instead here we take anything and everything China has to offer including poisoned food and lead painted toys.

[MADem]

16. I have to say the line about the "world's POOR" being sad that Bush was leaving was a hoot.

He's the shithead who PROMISES money and doesn't deliver it, or says "Here's some money--but no fucking with birth control, and no condom distribution, now--ABSTINENCE is the key to getting THIS cash!!!" The only time the words Bush and Charity go together is when Bush says "Charity begins at home...at mah ranch!!!! Heh, heh..."

I agree with your assessment wholeheartedly. The only one interested in us, IS us. And this bunch at The Economist is as pro-corporate as they come. The point about the pro-consumer focus of the EU is spot on as well.

I see nothing wrong with some forms of protectionism, especially when they apply to issues of national or infrastructure security, for example. It's fine to let markets work, but it's also sensible to have a little bit of redundancy in one's systems--just in case. Ya never know!

Hell, China owns a huge chunk of the world steel market...but given their inability to make safe dog food, do we really want their steel in our soon-to-be-replaced highway bridges and overpasses??? US STEEL always made a great product, built to last....sometimes, you do get what ya pay for.

[rodeodance]

4. revolutions usually become obvious only in retrospect.

Second, America, even if it shifts to the left, will still be a conservative force on the international stage. Mrs Clinton might be portrayed as a communist on talk radio in Kansas, but set her alongside France's Nicolas Sarkozy, Germany's Angela Merkel, Britain's David Cameron or any other supposed European conservative, and on virtually every significant issue Mrs Clinton is the more right-wing. She also mentions God more often than the average European bishop. As for foreign policy, the main Democratic candidates are equally staunch in their support of Israel; none of them has ruled out attacking Iran; Mr Obama might take a shot at Pakistan; and few of them want to cede power to multilateral organisations.

One finding that stands out in the polls is that most Americans distrust government strongly. Forty years ago they turned against a leftish elite trying to boss them around; now they have had to endure a right-wing version. In democracies political revolutions usually become obvious only in retrospect. In 1968, with America stuck in another bruising war, few liberals saw Richard Nixon's southern strategy as part of a long-term turn to the right. All that was clear then was that most Americans urgently wanted a change of direction. That is also true today.

[Perry Logan]

6. "America would soon make the world's poor regret Mr Bush's passing" - proof the Right are insane.

[Vincardog]

7. What do you mean? aWoL has done more to increase the number of poor people than any other single

person since RayGun.

[BleedingHeartPatriot]

8. I would be hard to imagine the end to Bush' presidential regime being anything but an

improvement, albeit minuscule, for the world's poor, contrary to the statement in the article.

MKJ

[Hippo_Tron]

9. American is becoming more protectionist, yes

This article is basically saying that people in developing nations are doing better under George W Bush because they are working in sweatshops instead of not working at all. Those are not the only two choices, IMO.

There's a good article about how the inequities from globalization can be addressed with a radical re-distribution of wealth, instead of just saying that we need job training and education.

http://www.foreignaffairs.org/20070701faessay86403/kenneth-f-scheve-matthew-j-slaughter/a-new-deal-for-globalization.html

[wtmusic]

10. Maybe, but the people in power aren't. nt

[Doctor_J]

11. Americans are, but the media is so far to the right they look like Mussolini

and since that's what the world and the terminally ignorant get to see, that's what they believe

[defendandprotect]

12. This has always been a LIBERAL nation ---

Polls that we never see say so -- according to Chompsky --

THAT's why they had to buy out all the media --

THAT's why they have to bust labor unions --

THAT's why all the political violence --

assassinations --

[polichick]

17. THAT's why they had to destroy our democracy...

...and institute fascism.

[RFKJrNews]

18. This has always been a nation who does not start wars

defendandprotect, I'm with `ya.

Historically, Americans have always tended towards isolationism. We used to only get involved in foreign wars due to an act of provocation (The Maine, Pearl Harbor, the Gulf of Tonkin, 9/11), whether the threat was real or manufactured. But that's how we always got in: reluctantly.

Only in recent years has America come to be known as a nation who wages unprovoked wars of agression on other nations. Makes me ashamed.





* Please SIGN THE PETITION to draft Robert F. Kennedy Jr. into the race for the White House at http://RFKin2008.com

[John Kerry VonErich]

20. Political violence? Assasinations?

Whatcha mean by that? :shrug:

[Hawkowl]

14. Consider the author

The economist is a free market, conservative (by European standards) rag. They don't represent the views of the vast majority of Europeans. Just would be robber barons.

[AX10]

19. 100% Correct! The Economist is a right wing rag.

[AnotherGreenWorld]

15. No.