It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

The Great Delusion: Liberal Dreams and International Realities

page: 1
6

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 7 2019 @ 09:30 PM
link   
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:





posted on Dec, 7 2019 @ 09:31 PM
link   
a reply to: strongfp

All I know is when my customers have lots of money my business does great! The rest of the mumbo jumbo is mind numbing.



posted on Dec, 7 2019 @ 10:48 PM
link   
a reply to: strongfp

IMO, Liberalism is destructive to nationalism, especially where liberalism can be fanned with the flames of "democracy" and freedom to give the oxygen to push it damn near to socialism.

Socialism was never ever supposed to be a consideration for this country, and we have presidential candidates that are self-claimed socialists allowed to run.

Nowadays, if you are a nationalist, you might also be considered a racist, a bigot, a sexist, a deplorable... it's a shame.

~Namaste



posted on Dec, 7 2019 @ 11:31 PM
link   
a reply to: SonOfTheLawOfOne

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.
edit on 7-12-2019 by strongfp because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 8 2019 @ 02:09 AM
link   
a reply to: strongfp

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



posted on Dec, 8 2019 @ 01:06 PM
link   
a reply to: 727Sky

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.



posted on Dec, 9 2019 @ 08:09 AM
link   
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.



new topics

top topics



 
6

log in

join