How Hillary Will Fail Liberals

[Chris]

She's a hawk. Liberals tend to be against that, interventionist neocons for it.

How Hillary Will Fail Liberals (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2014/08/14/how_hillary_will_fail_liberals_123657.html)


...if they mass behind Clinton's presidential candidacy, liberals will be making a Faustian deal. They may get the White House. But if they expect her to implement an ambitious domestic agenda, they are in for a painful shock. It's not that she wouldn't like to achieve it. It's that her priorities will make it impossible.

Those priorities became clear this week in her interview with Jeffrey Goldberg of The Atlantic, which she used to highlight how much more hawkish she is than that guy she used to work for.

She thinks the United States should have done more to help the Syrian rebels, must get over its habit of "hunkering down and pulling back," and needs an "overarching" strategy to combat Islamic terrorism. "I'm thinking a lot about containment, deterrence and defeat," she said.

Of Russian President Vladimir Putin's aggression against Ukraine, she implicitly blamed Barack Obama for not being assertive enough: "In the world in which we are living right now, vacuums get filled by some pretty unsavory players."

This is not an about-face for Clinton, who has always been partial to solutions that involve bombs, bullets and boots on the ground. She voted for the Iraq invasion. She pushed Obama to use air power against Libyan ruler Moammar Gadhafi.

As secretary of state, she favored a bigger surge in Afghanistan than Obama ultimately approved, and she wanted to keep combat troops there longer than he did. Former Defense Secretary Robert Gates wrote that he heard her tell Obama, "The Iraq surge worked" -- and that she opposed it only for political reasons.

Hawks would feel vindicated if Clinton were elected....

...The allure of a Faustian deal is getting something you desperately want. The drawback is losing something even more dear.

[Peter1469]

Obama's Liberal Hawks. (http://nationalinterest.org/blog/jacob-heilbrunn/the-rise-susan-rice-samantha-power-8553) Warmongering is not just on the right (http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/political-animal-a/2013_09/the_new_york_times_is046889.php).


But not, alas, all of them. The most depressing development in the Syria debate was the re-emergence of the liberal hawks. I’ve heard the quip about the only thing we learn from history is that we learn nothing from history. Even so, after Iraq, I would have have thought that many of the “decent left” types would have been a tad more reflective this time around. And yes, a few of them were. Others, sadly, not so (http://www.lawyersgunsmoneyblog.com/2013/08/experts) much (http://www.salon.com/2013/09/12/nicholas_kristof_knows_better_a_shameful_addition_ to_the_syria_hawk_club/).

With the liberal hawks, a peculiar kind of pathology comes into play when these international crises arise, which I described here (http://www.nationalmemo.com/the-siren-song-of-war-why-pundits-beat-the-drums-for-iraq/), in a piece I wrote about Iraq. I’ll elaborate. When people act politically, they tend to believe, naturally enough, they are on the side of the angels.

Liberals and leftists, in particular, are often driven by idealism and a strong desire to do good in the world. Many times this is a good thing; it indicates strong moral convictions and empathy for your fellow suffering human beings. But such impulses can also go awry, because they contain the seeds of moral vanity. We all have at least a touch of that sort of narcissism, unless we are saints. And I always liked what Orwell said about saints, that they should always be judged guilty until proved innocent.

Some people, then, use politics as a kind of stage where they can perform virtue. For American liberals, that kind of messianic zeal seems to reveal itself most fulsomely during international episodes like Syria, or like Iraq 10 years ago. It’s scary to see how, with lightning speed, logic and rationality can be short-circuited, and otherwise intelligent people give way to the kinds of extremes of jingoistic emotionalism we saw in the early days of the Iraq War. The issue becomes not what practical policy they can support that has the most realistic chance of doing the most good and the least harm, but how they can use politics to entertain fantasies of omnipotence and moral superiority. They want to persuade you, and perhaps most of all themselves, of their sterling moral character and heroic awesomeness. And then — metaphorically speaking — out come the Captain America costumes. Men are especially vulnerable to liberal hawk syndrome, I’ve noticed. Very few female pundits seem to fall into this camp.

But history shows that these types of violent military interventions seldom improve things and often make them worse. Likewise, the idea of the indisputable benevolence of American power is questionable (read up on the history of American military interventions, open and covert, you will unders

[Peter1469]

Obama's Liberal Hawks. (http://nationalinterest.org/blog/jacob-heilbrunn/the-rise-susan-rice-samantha-power-8553) Warmongering is not just on the right (http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/political-animal-a/2013_09/the_new_york_times_is046889.php).


But not, alas, all of them. The most depressing development in the Syria debate was the re-emergence of the liberal hawks. I’ve heard the quip about the only thing we learn from history is that we learn nothing from history. Even so, after Iraq, I would have have thought that many of the “decent left” types would have been a tad more reflective this time around. And yes, a few of them were. Others, sadly, not so (http://www.lawyersgunsmoneyblog.com/2013/08/experts) much (http://www.salon.com/2013/09/12/nicholas_kristof_knows_better_a_shameful_addition_ to_the_syria_hawk_club/).

With the liberal hawks, a peculiar kind of pathology comes into play when these international crises arise, which I described here (http://www.nationalmemo.com/the-siren-song-of-war-why-pundits-beat-the-drums-for-iraq/), in a piece I wrote about Iraq. I’ll elaborate. When people act politically, they tend to believe, naturally enough, they are on the side of the angels.

Liberals and leftists, in particular, are often driven by idealism and a strong desire to do good in the world. Many times this is a good thing; it indicates strong moral convictions and empathy for your fellow suffering human beings. But such impulses can also go awry, because they contain the seeds of moral vanity. We all have at least a touch of that sort of narcissism, unless we are saints. And I always liked what Orwell said about saints, that they should always be judged guilty until proved innocent.

Some people, then, use politics as a kind of stage where they can perform virtue. For American liberals, that kind of messianic zeal seems to reveal itself most fulsomely during international episodes like Syria, or like Iraq 10 years ago. It’s scary to see how, with lightning speed, logic and rationality can be short-circuited, and otherwise intelligent people give way to the kinds of extremes of jingoistic emotionalism we saw in the early days of the Iraq War. The issue becomes not what practical policy they can support that has the most realistic chance of doing the most good and the least harm, but how they can use politics to entertain fantasies of omnipotence and moral superiority. They want to persuade you, and perhaps most of all themselves, of their sterling moral character and heroic awesomeness. And then — metaphorically speaking — out come the Captain America costumes. Men are especially vulnerable to liberal hawk syndrome, I’ve noticed. Very few female pundits seem to fall into this camp.

But history shows that these types of violent military interventions seldom improve things and often make them worse. Likewise, the idea of the indisputable benevolence of American power is questionable (read up on the history of American military interventions, open and covert, you will understand.

[midcan5]

If there is one single issue on which I will, as a liberal (whatever that may mean) vote for Hillary, it is in the selection of judges at the federal level. If we / you want to lose our / your individual freedoms to corporate and state ideologues by all mean vote republican. Independent only counts if you don't want to count.

Plus under democrats the economy has been better than under a republican. "For the past 64 years, since Harry Truman was first elected to the White House, Democrat presidents have presided over stronger economies than their GOP counterparts — by almost any measure of economic health.

It’s not just GDP, which Making Sen$e has shown is not always the most reliable of economic indicators. Under Democratic presidents, per capita GDP has been higher; job creation has been stronger; decreases in unemployment have been greater; the S&P 500 stock index has been higher; corporate profits have been bigger; and real wages and labor productivity have increased." Simone Pathe


http://www.pbs.org/newshour/making-sense/getting-lucky-why-the-economy-has-grown-faster-under-democratic-presidents/

[Ransom]

Hillary trying to carve a difference out between her and this disaster of a President, figures the Iso's would rage over media puppets telling us all what Hillary thinks....today. Tomorrow we will hear something much different, these two have many more similarities than they do differences. Like many contributors to this thread, their politics come first before sound principle. They'll speak and act one way today....and much different tomorrow. What would be the difference in Iraq and Syria, why act like they both did in Egypt and Libya, where were they then and where are they now on issues like the Patriot Act?

Let me give an example, the Surveillance Act. Hillary voted against it in 2008....Obama....predicting he'd be President by 2009, voted yes. Yes, that's right liberal elitists and leftists....Obama showed his arse early....you voted for him anyway....and then charade outrage when you find out about NSA surveillance Eddie Snowden is 'exposing.'

Another note of amusement here. It's always been explained to me the differences between isolationism and non-interventionism. There's never really been confusion on the other side of the aisle mind you....according to this forum, you're either a war monger or you're not a war monger. We have here a new term...a interventionist neocon. Interesting. The forum awfully politicized on every issue, Ransom's teach for the day is to remain measured. Try not to be single-minded, such a sheep to the media many observers seem to adore.

[Peter1469]

If there is one single issue on which I will, as a liberal (whatever that may mean) vote for Hillary, it is in the selection of judges at the federal level. If we / you want to lose our / your individual freedoms to corporate and state ideologues by all mean vote republican. Independent only counts if you don't want to count.

Plus under democrats the economy has been better than under a republican. "For the past 64 years, since Harry Truman was first elected to the White House, Democrat presidents have presided over stronger economies than their GOP counterparts — by almost any measure of economic health.

It’s not just GDP, which Making Sen$e has shown is not always the most reliable of economic indicators. Under Democratic presidents, per capita GDP has been higher; job creation has been stronger; decreases in unemployment have been greater; the S&P 500 stock index has been higher; corporate profits have been bigger; and real wages and labor productivity have increased." Simone Pathe


http://www.pbs.org/newshour/making-sense/getting-lucky-why-the-economy-has-grown-faster-under-democratic-presidents/

The largest peace time economic expansion in human history was caused by Reagan and his policies.

Post fail.

[Chris]

If there is one single issue on which I will, as a liberal (whatever that may mean) vote for Hillary, it is in the selection of judges at the federal level. If we / you want to lose our / your individual freedoms to corporate and state ideologues by all mean vote republican. Independent only counts if you don't want to count.

Plus under democrats the economy has been better than under a republican. "For the past 64 years, since Harry Truman was first elected to the White House, Democrat presidents have presided over stronger economies than their GOP counterparts — by almost any measure of economic health.

It’s not just GDP, which Making Sen$e has shown is not always the most reliable of economic indicators. Under Democratic presidents, per capita GDP has been higher; job creation has been stronger; decreases in unemployment have been greater; the S&P 500 stock index has been higher; corporate profits have been bigger; and real wages and labor productivity have increased." Simone Pathe


http://www.pbs.org/newshour/making-sense/getting-lucky-why-the-economy-has-grown-faster-under-democratic-presidents/


Problem with that argument, midcan, is it's blind to Democrat support of cronyism just the same a Republican. Just look at support of Ex-Im.

And the economy better? Bush took us into the recession, Obama made it the Great Recession.

Ah, but I argue with a partisan, to what point?

[Chris]

Hillary trying to carve a difference out between her and this disaster of a President, figures the Iso's would rage over media puppets telling us all what Hillary thinks....today. Tomorrow we will hear something much different, these two have many more similarities than they do differences. Like many contributors to this thread, their politics come first before sound principle. They'll speak and act one way today....and much different tomorrow. What would be the difference in Iraq and Syria, why act like they both did in Egypt and Libya, where were they then and where are they now on issues like the Patriot Act?

Let me give an example, the Surveillance Act. Hillary voted against it in 2008....Obama....predicting he'd be President by 2009, voted yes. Yes, that's right liberal elitists and leftists....Obama showed his arse early....you voted for him anyway....and then charade outrage when you find out about NSA surveillance Eddie Snowden is 'exposing.'

Another note of amusement here. It's always been explained to me the differences between isolationism and non-interventionism. There's never really been confusion on the other side of the aisle mind you....according to this forum, you're either a war monger or you're not a war monger. We have here a new term...a interventionist neocon. Interesting. The forum awfully politicized on every issue, Ransom's teach for the day is to remain measured. Try not to be single-minded, such a sheep to the media many observers seem to adore.


Yes, there are isolationists and there are interventionists, and between the two are non-interventionists who are not hawks but also, not afraid to defend, not doves.

[Peter1469]

The concept of Realism (http://www.hri.org/por/thucydides.html)in international relations rose out of the Peloponnesian War.

Both the Neocons and the Isolationists could learn something if they had the attention span for in depth study of that conflict.

[PolWatch]

imho: Hillary decides which way the wind is blowing & that is where she goes. She began questioning the Iraq invasion and then voted to invade. I suspect her decisions are more about how it will effect the ballot box than any real commitment to one policy or another.

[Chris]

imho: Hillary decides which way the wind is blowing & that is where she goes. She began questioning the Iraq invasion and then voted to invade. I suspect her decisions are more about how it will effect the ballot box than any real commitment to one policy or another.

IMO, she takes after Bill on that score.

[The Sage of Main Street]

The largest peace time economic expansion in human history was caused by Reagan and his policies.

Post fail. No, it was because he scared the bejesus out of the OPEC price-gougers and made them lower the price of energy. It was the same effect as if he had found trillions of dollars somewhere and pumped it into the economy.

[The Sage of Main Street]

Problem with that argument, midcan, is it's blind to Democrat support of cronyism just the same a Republican. Just look at support of Ex-Im.

And the economy better? Bush took us into the recession, Obama made it the Great Recession.

Ah, but I argue with a partisan, to what point? You argue with glue.

[Ransom]

imho: Hillary decides which way the wind is blowing & that is where she goes. She began questioning the Iraq invasion and then voted to invade. I suspect her decisions are more about how it will effect the ballot box than any real commitment to one policy or another.

Couldn't agree more, how is Undaunted Courage coming along, where are they, have they pushed off onto the Missouri yet?

[The Sage of Main Street]

The concept of Realism (http://www.hri.org/por/thucydides.html)in international relations rose out of the Peloponnesian War.

Both the Neocons and the Isolationists could learn something if they had the attention span for in depth study of that conflict. Thucydides lost me when he had the Spartans speak like philosophy professors. Anyone that far out of the real world is obviously trying to impose the mental masturbation of theoretical constructions on reality. His side lost; but theoretically, victory was a sure thing for them.

[The Sage of Main Street]

imho: Hillary decides which way the wind is blowing & that is where she goes. She began questioning the Iraq invasion and then voted to invade. I suspect her decisions are more about how it will effect the ballot box than any real commitment to one policy or another. Again, she lost the nomination when the media told us she was a sure thing. So why should we trust this sheltered conceited washed-up hack on her political viability this time?