I've always been rather fascinated by the constant push of 'neo-liberalism' and it's supposed counter of 'neo- conservatism'.
Sometime during the 1970's a strong foreign policy conducted by the American government was also pushed heavily onto it's own nation, Vietnam was
seen as a huge failure, and the government started to look weak, America was at the fringe of looking like it was on a decline.
At the same time China took on North Vietnam, and Russia who was now trying to rebuild itself after the fall of the USSR invaded Afghanistan.
America was indeed looking weak, Unions were powerful, oil was out of grasp, Europe was starting to become self sufficient, Vietnam was a massive blow
to military superiority, something needed to be done.
From then on liberal democracy was the main priority, push it as hard as possible, while seemingly destroying it at home.
A video I stumbled upon where Professor John J Mearsheimer, a poly sci powerhouse gives a brief lecture and Q&A about what his thoughts have been on
the spread of liberal democracy.
What I find interesting is his views on what liberalism vrs nationalism is, and how each have either guided humanity towards either strife, or
progression. He talks about how liberalism has created a rift in those who were heavily nationalistic, to maybe give democracy a chance, but at the
same time, nationalism should not be infringed upon.
What's most interesting is how he almost specifically distinguishes how someone who has liberal views is different from someone who thinks as a
'nationalist'. If there was a ying and yang of guys you don't want to play trivia pursuit against, Chomsky is ying and this professor is yang,
it's rather hilarious.
If you're into this sort of thing take sometime to watch!
His lecture ends around the 55 min mark, and then questions begin. Enjoy:
It goes hand in hand really, which is exactly what the professor exhibits. Liberalism the answer to nationalism and same goes for the other way
around. As going as far as pushing 'socialism', that's a bit of a stretch.
This point you make is interesting:
Nowadays, if you are a nationalist, you might also be considered a racist, a bigot, a sexist, a deplorable... it's a shame.
This is not true at all, majority of the world is extremely nationalist, if you watched the lecture you'd see why.
But to basically sum it up, liberalism was pushed by false promises that if America came into town, democracy would follow.
OK that sounds great and all, but what does democracy mean to a place like Russia or China, or hypothetically Saudi Arabia? Can you not see how
nationalistic viewpoints aren't just an 'American' thing? What is nationalism to you isn't what nationalism is to some place else.
7-12-2019 by strongfp because: (no reason given)
He made some good points but his whole Liberal democracy definition would better fit the 60s definition. Today a liberal democracy "tramples free
speech and frowns upon doing your own thing" unless it is approved by the liberals in power.
Open borders has caused the rise of Nationalism. Anyone who could not see that coming IMO is several cells short of a thinking brain.
As far as a world interdependence on each other that has been and can be a recipe for war because the countries are always worried about another
country;s unfair advantage or trying to get a leg up in the power struggle.
Interesting video as it is always good to get another opinion. S&f for your effort
Nationalism has always been strong around the world, that's what his whole point was about that liberal democracy was being shoved down the throats of
places that didn't value it as much as 'western' nations.
Liberalism isn't quite the same as what you're defining it as. You're thinking of radical left.
A true liberal would be actually tolerant of almost everything to the point of near anarchy. A true conservative could also have liberal tendencies
and be conservative practice. I think that describes me.
Limited gov and therefor you should be able to do what you want within reason that will be defined by the Republic and the procedures that the Loony
left is trying to smear right now. Conservative with the resources and money practices. Nationalism in only the sense we have borders and need to
define where they are and how people agree to act about the laws we pass. Without a boundary, no nation exist in reality. Only in theory like the
theoretical Palestinian nation that never was but could still become if they would agree to co exist and love their neighbors. Not Jewish btw, just
logical about the situation as can be considering the way Israel was propped up after the Genocide of the Jews.
This content community relies on user-generated content from our member contributors. The opinions of our members are not those of site ownership who maintains strict editorial agnosticism and simply provides a collaborative venue for free expression.