Do Liberals Have a Cohesive Foreign Policy? If So, What Is It?

[Ethereal]

I notice liberals in foreign policy debates from time to time, but I cannot discern a coherent or unifying theme across these debates.

Most of the time, their views on foreign policy are related to specific issues like Israel or Russia.

But what is the principle or principles that ties them together?

Sometimes it seems like liberals want more wars and more interventionism. Libya, Syria, and Russia come to mind.

Whereas other times it seems like liberals want less wars and less interventionism. Iraq and Israel come to mind.

What explains this? Other than obvious partisanship, that is?

[Captain Obvious]

The DNC legislature can only follow along. O'bammy's foreign policy was progressive establishment agenda driven, they just followed along for the ride.

Ergo, no, not really.

[Casper]

I notice liberals in foreign policy debates from time to time, but I cannot discern a coherent or unifying theme across these debates.

Most of the time, their views on foreign policy are related to specific issues like Israel or Russia.

But what is the principle or principles that ties them together?

Sometimes it seems like liberals want more wars and more interventionism. Libya, Syria, and Russia come to mind.

Whereas other times it seems like liberals want less wars and less interventionism. Iraq and Israel come to mind.

What explains this? Other than obvious partisanship, that is?

Does not matter if they have one or not, They are not in charge, the Conservatives are, and we see they are excellent at Foreign Affairs, or not.

[Ethereal]

Does not matter if they have one or not...

Setting the bar awfully low, aren't we?

[Casper]

Setting the bar awfully low, aren't we?
The bar has been low for years now and we see what that gets us in the WH, cannot go much lower than that.

[Ethereal]

The bar has been low for years now and we see what that gets us in the WH, cannot go much lower than that.
Just because other people have low standards does not mean you should have low standards yourself.

A political movement that has no coherent foreign policy is not a movement that should be taken seriously.

[Ethereal]

Liberals have no response.

Shocking.

[Kalkin]

Do Liberals Have a Cohesive Foreign Policy? If So, What Is It?

Kumbaya. America last.

[Dr. Who]

Liberals have no response.

Shocking.
It's little different than asking whether conservatives have a cohesive foreign policy? If so, what is it? Which liberals and which conservatives?

[Ethereal]

It's little different than asking whether conservatives have a cohesive foreign policy? If so, what is it? Which liberals and which conservatives?
Huh?

[Dr. Who]

Huh?

The foreign policy ideas of the more centrist members of either is different than those of the fringes. Do you really think that there is cohesive foreign policy agreement between the (right wing) libertarians and the rinos? I think not. Whichever government is in power makes compromises amongst its own. There is never unanimity. Furthermore, foreign policy is not without commercial interests who call in their markers.

[kilgram]

Huh?
Obviously people have different ideas and think differently. So, what is absurd is that everybody think the same about a topic.

And, liberals is a term very generic. Do you, conservatives have a cohesive policies about foreign policies? No. Then, the question is absurd.

It depends in both sides to who asks. If you ask to a socialist, communist that is voting the Democratic party because it is the only option they have they will defend less interventionism like the libertarians in the conservatie spectre. Then, if you ask to the progressives, those that they don't differ much to conservatives in the conservative spectre will be a little more interventionist.

So, no, there are not cohesive opinions about this and about any topic.

[Ethereal]

The foreign policy ideas of the more centrist members of either is different than those of the fringes. Do you really think that there is cohesive foreign policy agreement between the (right wing) libertarians and the rinos? I think not. Whichever government is in power makes compromises amongst its own. There is never unanimity. Furthermore, foreign policy is not without commercial interests who call in their markers.
The entire point of creating categories or classes like "liberal" is because they lend themselves to generalizations. Otherwise, what would be the point of calling yourself a "liberal" if you had nothing in common with other members of the group?

I think you're just making an excuse because liberals do lack a cohesive, coherent foreign policy vision for America. And instead of admitting it, you just try to change the subject.

[Ethereal]

Obviously people have different ideas and think differently. So, what is absurd is that everybody think the same about a topic.

I wasn't talking about everybody, I was talking about liberals.


And, liberals is a term very generic.

In other words, modern "liberalism" means nothing and is just a fancy label that people apply to themselves because it sounds cool.


Do you, conservatives have a cohesive policies about foreign policies? No.

I'm not a conservative, I'm a libertarian. And libertarians generally have a cohesive foreign policy centered around non-interventionism and free trade.

As for conservatives, they tend to belong to one of two camps. What Pat Buchanan refers to as "enlightened nationalism" (although some call it isolationism) and the neocon contingent that supports aggressive intervention abroad.

So, you see, I can pretty easily describe the foreign policy posture of both libertarians and conservatives, so why are you having so much trouble explaining the foreign policy of liberals? Is it because they don't actually have one and just do whatever their party leaders tell them to do? Mmmmm, I wonder.


Then, the question is absurd.

The question is perfectly legitimate. What's absurd is your attempt to rationalize your complete lack of an answer.


It depends in both sides to who asks. If you ask to a socialist, communist that is voting the Democratic party because it is the only option they have they will defend less interventionism like the libertarians in the conservatie spectre. Then, if you ask to the progressives, those that they don't differ much to conservatives in the conservative spectre will be a little more interventionist.

So, no, there are not cohesive opinions about this and about any topic.

You're basically admitting that liberalism has no consistent meaning and is just some label that people slap on themselves for random reasons having nothing to do with ideology per se.

[Bethere]

Troll thread.

[Peter1469]

In general modern American liberals see globalism and open borders as their foreign policy.

[midcan5]

I agree with someone above , this is a troll thread. If you are seriously interested then research the topic, tPF is hardly the best place for expert opinions on so complicated an area of policy. It has always fascinated me on how the right in America is always putting down the left while ignoring their own house.

Liberal think tank: https://www.brookings.edu/program/foreign-policy/

http://fair.org/home/npr-sees-restraint-in-trumps-threat-filled-foreign-policy/


http://www.huffingtonpost.com/ian-bremmer/american-foreign-policy-2016_b_7513340.html (http://fair.org/home/npr-sees-restraint-in-trumps-threat-filled-foreign-policy/http://www.huffingtonpost.com/ian-bremmer/american-foreign-policy-2016_b_7513340.html)

[Peter1469]

You are the most biased poster on the forum.


I agree with someone above , this is a troll thread. If you are seriously interested then research the topic, tPF is hardly the best place for expert opinions on so complicated an area of policy. It has always fascinated me on how the right in America is always putting down the left while ignoring their own house.

Liberal think tank: https://www.brookings.edu/program/foreign-policy/

http://fair.org/home/npr-sees-restraint-in-trumps-threat-filled-foreign-policy/


http://www.huffingtonpost.com/ian-bremmer/american-foreign-policy-2016_b_7513340.html (http://fair.org/home/npr-sees-restraint-in-trumps-threat-filled-foreign-policy/http://www.huffingtonpost.com/ian-bremmer/american-foreign-policy-2016_b_7513340.html)

[Mini Me]

In general modern American liberals see globalism and open borders as their foreign policy.
Wrong! Again! Liberals are fighting corporatism and fascism, which is at the core of Globalism. Obama was not a true liberal.

The Dream act was not an open borders proposal!

[Casper]

Just because other people have low standards does not mean you should have low standards yourself.

A political movement that has no coherent foreign policy is not a movement that should be taken seriously.
True and if my Standards were applied the large number of Congressmen and Senators and a sitting President would not be in office. True, I did support the GOP in this last election, wanted to see if they could walk the walk after talking it for so long, right now I am not impressed. And as for trump, or Hillary, I consider neither able to pass the smell test and hence did not support either, trump is proving he is not capable, and neither would have Hillary been, Both Parties set their bar so low that nearly 50% of Voters said they would Pass on the election, Not a good sign.
I find it interesting that you speak on American Politics and even use the would We often, yet are you not a Foreigner living in another Nation, or am I mistaken on that?

[resister]

Troll thread.^troll post

[Peter1469]

Wrong! Again! Liberals are fighting corporatism and fascism, which is at the core of Globalism. Obama was not a true liberal.

The Dream act was not an open borders proposal!


You don't have a clue as to what you are talking about.

Pay more attention to the world.

[Ethereal]

Troll thread.

Only because you showed up.

[Ethereal]

I agree with someone above , this is a troll thread.

Liberals think any thread that is critical of them is a troll thread. They are snowflakes.

[Ethereal]

True and if my Standards were applied the large number of Congressmen and Senators and a sitting President would not be in office. True, I did support the GOP in this last election, wanted to see if they could walk the walk after talking it for so long, right now I am not impressed. And as for trump, or Hillary, I consider neither able to pass the smell test and hence did not support either, trump is proving he is not capable, and neither would have Hillary been, Both Parties set their bar so low that nearly 50% of Voters said they would Pass on the election, Not a good sign.
I find it interesting that you speak on American Politics and even use the would We often, yet are you not a Foreigner living in another Nation, or am I mistaken on that?
My family has been here since 1699. I'm as American as apple pie.

[Ethereal]

Wrong! Again! Liberals are fighting corporatism and fascism, which is at the core of Globalism. Obama was not a true liberal.

The Dream act was not an open borders proposal!


If Obama was not a true liberal, then why do so many self-described liberals support him?

[Common Sense]

My family has been here since 1699. I'm as American as apple pie.

Not an attack...but interestingly enough apple pie isn't really American, so the term is a bit of a misnomer. The apples grown in the US today trace their roots back to eastern Europe and apple pies are originally from England. ;)

...but I get the meaning. ;)

[Common Sense]

If Obama was not a true liberal, then why do so many self-described liberals support him?

Why do so many conservatives support Trump.

It's for the same reasons.

[The Xl]

They're anti war until they're in office, then they're pro war, pro sanctions, pro regime change, same as the neocons.

[ripmeister]

This would be a good start as a general framework.

https://www.opendemocracy.net/democracy-americanpower/ten_maxims_4388.jsp

[Adelaide]

I notice liberals in foreign policy debates from time to time, but I cannot discern a coherent or unifying theme across these debates.

Most of the time, their views on foreign policy are related to specific issues like Israel or Russia.

But what is the principle or principles that ties them together?

Sometimes it seems like liberals want more wars and more interventionism. Libya, Syria, and Russia come to mind.

Whereas other times it seems like liberals want less wars and less interventionism. Iraq and Israel come to mind.

What explains this? Other than obvious partisanship, that is?

Every conflilct is different so you can't really treat every conflict the same. Actually, it would be pretty stupid to treat every conflict the same since here are so many variables at play. You have to consider international law, diplomatic relations, human rights, cost/benefit, involvement with treaties, what is being fought over/origin of the conflict, so on.

[Captain Obvious]

Canada's foreign policy is to just be the US's hat

[Common Sense]

Canada's foreign policy is to just be the US's hat
Shut up, pants. Your fly is open.

[Captain Obvious]

Shut up, pants. Your fly is open.

That's Mexico

[MisterVeritis]

My family has been here since 1699. I'm as American as apple pie.
. . . with just a hint of crabapple. :grin:

[Ethereal]

Why do so many conservatives support Trump.

Because many of them are not really conservatives?


It's for the same reasons.

Which are?

[Ethereal]

This would be a good start as a general framework.

https://www.opendemocracy.net/democracy-americanpower/ten_maxims_4388.jsp

Do you think that accurately represents the mainstream thinking within the liberal political movement? Because I cannot see it.

[Ethereal]

Every conflilct is different so you can't really treat every conflict the same. Actually, it would be pretty stupid to treat every conflict the same since here are so many variables at play. You have to consider international law, diplomatic relations, human rights, cost/benefit, involvement with treaties, what is being fought over/origin of the conflict, so on.

There is a difference between treating every conflict the same and using the same set of principles to address a wide range of disparate conflicts. Just because you use the same set of principles to address them does not mean all the results or approaches will be the same. A libertarian uses the same basic principles to approach all foreign policy issues, yet they do not have any problem making a distinction between when force is needed or when diplomacy is preferable.

[Common Sense]

That's Mexico

Those are our shoes.

[Ethereal]

. . . with just a hint of crabapple. :grin:
Unfortunately for America, the ornery, rugged American is a dying breed.

[Mister D]

Wrong! Again! Liberals are fighting corporatism and fascism, which is at the core of Globalism. Obama was not a true liberal.

The Dream act was not an open borders proposal!


Where to begin? First of all, you don't understand what corporatism means. It does not mean rule by Exxon-Mobil and Goldmann Sachs. Please make a note. Secondly, fascism no longer exists. You can no more fight fascism than you can fight the Confederacy.

To say the Obama is not a true liberal is a No True Scotsman. What is he? Where do Barack Obama's values and political persuasion place him? Admittedly, we're speaking in very general terms but he is certainly not a conservative in any sense of the term. He's a progressive. Sir, the Dream Act granted goodies to people who shouldn't be here. If that's not an open borders policy nothing is. The left, as well as the right, stand for open borders. The people don't.

[Ethereal]

What is he?

Self-serving and opportunistic?

[Mister D]

Self-serving and opportunistic?
I really don't think so. It seems clear enough to me that he possesses a basic progressive worldview. Will he compromise that worldview when it's convenient to do so? Sho nuff! His priority is getting elected. Moreover, his "evolution" regarding gay marriage reveals no evolution at all. He just thought it opportune to come out (pun most definitely intended) so just judging by his words you couldn't really know where Obama stood. I think your comment is more accurate with regard to Bill Clinton who I do think lacked principles but even Clinton had a basic progressive worldview.

[Ethereal]

Will he compromise that worldview when it's convenient to do so?

Couldn't one argue that a prerequisite to being part of an ideological group is consistent adherence to its principles? If not, then doesn't the label itself become nebulous to the point of meaninglessness? If getting elected is more important to him than promoting liberalism, then is he really loyal to liberalism?

[Bethere]

Where to begin? First of all, you don't understand what corporatism means. It does not mean rule by Exxon-Mobil and Goldmann Sachs. Please make a note. Secondly, fascism no longer exists. You can no more fight fascism than you can fight the Confederacy.

To say the Obama is not a true liberal is a No True Scotsman. What is he? Where do Barack Obama's values and political persuasion place him? Admittedly, we're speaking in very general terms but he is certainly not a conservative in any sense of the term. He's a progressive. Sir, the Dream Act granted goodies to people who shouldn't be here. If that's not an open borders policy nothing is. The left, as well as the right, stand for open borders. The people don't.
Lol.

[kilgram]

Where to begin? First of all, you don't understand what corporatism means. It does not mean rule by Exxon-Mobil and Goldmann Sachs. Please make a note. Secondly, fascism no longer exists. You can no more fight fascism than you can fight the Confederacy.

To say the Obama is not a true liberal is a No True Scotsman. What is he? Where do Barack Obama's values and political persuasion place him? Admittedly, we're speaking in very general terms but he is certainly not a conservative in any sense of the term. He's a progressive. Sir, the Dream Act granted goodies to people who shouldn't be here. If that's not an open borders policy nothing is. The left, as well as the right, stand for open borders. The people don't.
That fascism does not exist is a lie. Fascism exists. I am tired to see supporters of fascist ideas in this forum, for example.

Fascism is pretty strong in Europe, where in some countries has become second or third force. So, yes. Fascism is real.

In Spain, a party that comes from the fascism, and even today has many fascist links is governing. And they even don't hide singing "Cara al Sol" from time to time. So, yes. There is fascism. Fascism is real.

[donttread]

I notice liberals in foreign policy debates from time to time, but I cannot discern a coherent or unifying theme across these debates.

Most of the time, their views on foreign policy are related to specific issues like Israel or Russia.

But what is the principle or principles that ties them together?

Sometimes it seems like liberals want more wars and more interventionism. Libya, Syria, and Russia come to mind.

Whereas other times it seems like liberals want less wars and less interventionism. Iraq and Israel come to mind.

What explains this? Other than obvious partisanship, that is?

Well to be fair they have no real domestic platform either

[ripmeister]

Do you think that accurately represents the mainstream thinking within the liberal political movement? Because I cannot see it.
I don't know. I thought you were asking for individual responses. I'm sure there is a broad range of positions on this just as there is with conservatives.

[Mister D]

That fascism does not exist is a lie. Fascism exists. I am tired to see supporters of fascist ideas in this forum, for example.

Fascism is pretty strong in Europe, where in some countries has become second or third force. So, yes. Fascism is real.

In Spain, a party that comes from the fascism, and even today has many fascist links is governing. And they even don't hide singing "Cara al Sol" from time to time. So, yes. There is fascism. Fascism is real.
Sure, if you simply equate fascism with authoritarianism. You can butcher multiple languages. :)

No, it's not. It exists no where.

[Mister D]

Couldn't one argue that a prerequisite to being part of an ideological group is consistent adherence to its principles? If not, then doesn't the label itself become nebulous to the point of meaninglessness? If getting elected is more important to him than promoting liberalism, then is he really loyal to liberalism?

I don't think it's healthy to adhere to too rigidly to a principle. I think there is a difference between a principled man and fanatical ideologue. Is the latter a more principled man? Or is he a narrow-minded and inflexible man?

I tend to see one's politics as a tendency. It might be a strong tendency or a weak one but it's present. As for BO, I think he has a clear tendency toward progressive politics but sometimes reality (be it in the form of partisan opposition, vested interests, personal interests etc.) gets in the way.

[Kalkin]

Lol.

You always do that when your intellect sputters. Del, too.

[Chris]

Lol.

https://i.snag.gy/OPADBe.jpg

D was right, you know.

[Chris]

That fascism does not exist is a lie. Fascism exists. I am tired to see supporters of fascist ideas in this forum, for example.

Fascism is pretty strong in Europe, where in some countries has become second or third force. So, yes. Fascism is real.

In Spain, a party that comes from the fascism, and even today has many fascist links is governing. And they even don't hide singing "Cara al Sol" from time to time. So, yes. There is fascism. Fascism is real.

Define what you mean by fascism.

[Ethereal]

I don't think it's healthy to adhere to too rigidly to a principle. I think there is a difference between a principled man and fanatical ideologue. Is the latter a more principled man? Or is he a narrow-minded and inflexible man?

I tend to see one's politics as a tendency. It might be a strong tendency or a weak one but it's present. As for BO, I think he has a clear tendency toward progressive politics but sometimes reality (be it in the form of partisan opposition, vested interests, personal interests etc.) gets in the way.
True, but I believe there is a difference between being flexible and a willingness to completely abandon a principle (which are supposed to be deeply held, otherwise what's the point of having them?) for self-serving reasons. Just as one example, how many Christian Saints were willing to die for their principles?

[Mister D]

True, but I believe there is a difference between being flexible and a willingness to completely abandon a principle (which are supposed to be deeply held, otherwise what's the point of having them?) for self-serving reasons. Just as one example, how many Christian Saints were willing to die for their principles?

Your example of the Christian Saints entailed an existential threat. I honestly don't think that's fair. How many of us would collapse under the threat of a agonizing death and one that we would simply have to accept because there was no way of fighting back? It takes a special kind of man.


What principles do progressives hold deeply? Equality? Fairness? Justice? Progress? What do these terms even mean? I would concede to any progressive here (and to Obama) that one can be pragmatic with such ideals. That said, I think we both have seen instances on this forum where progressives are positively dogmatic. For example, virtually anything touching on race engenders a rigidity of thought that is simply exasperating. Even irrational! How many times, for example, do I need to explain the demographic reality of gun violence? They remain resistant to reality on this point and will not bend.

I definitely understand where you're coming from. Progressives (conservatives too) can be rather selective in their outrage and will attempt to use reasoning that's hard to accept because they should have applied that same reasoning all along. Worse still, their sudden reversal on foreign policy is an obvious instance of hypocrisy. Our former doves now want to escalate tensions with a nuclear power because their shitty candidate lost? Are you fucking insane? In this case, yes, partisanship gamesmanship comes well before peace.

[Mister D]

Define what you mean by fascism.
Like Polly, kilgram uses the term "fascism" as a catch all for virtually every conservative disposition, right wing ideal or thought. Discussion on this point is useless.