6032

Some of those aren’t exactly contradictory though - I would say that most businesses make a reasonable amount of profit, but also that (very?) large corporations make too much profit. Obviously that’s a slight reword.

I’d also say that Government is often wasteful and inefficient, and also does a better job than people give it credit for.

6033

I’m with @Timex, I think conservative has no meaning anymore. So it doesn’t bother me too much the Trumpster call themselves conversative.

The Democrat party as whole is less liberal than represented here and has a number of folks who share many of my philosophies. Some of the former Republican principals, I think make more sense in the Democratic party.

For example interventionism, I think at is roots is a classic liberal belief that should have a home in the Democrat party.
Interventionism, is belief that the US should be actively promoting democratic values throughout the world. Although military force is a a last resort, war is not the worst thing, and US military can be a force for good.

FDR was interventionist, while the Republican party at the time was isolationist.
JFK was the patron saint of the movement. I still have much of his inaugural speech memorized.

We dare not forget today that we are the heirs of that first revolution. Let the word go forth from this time and place, to friend and foe alike, that the torch has been passed to a new generation of Americans—born in this century, tempered by war, disciplined by a hard and bitter peace, proud of our ancient heritage—and unwilling to witness or permit the slow undoing of those human rights to which this nation has always been committed, and to which we are committed today at home and around the world.

Let every nation know, whether it wishes us well or ill, that we shall pay any price, bear any burden, meet any hardship, support any friend, oppose any foe to assure the survival and the success of liberty.

This much we pledge—and more.

This attitude is not without it is risks as both Vietnam and iraq II showed. But fundamentally, it is about helping those less fortunate than yourself, which is a classically liberal philosophy. There is a place for it in the Democratic party, as Susan Rice, Samantha Powers, Hillary Clinton, and even John Kerry are part of this. More importantly, the Iraq/Afghan veterans have had first had experience with the positive things the US can do overseas. Certainly plenty come back like Tulsi (or John Kerry did from Vietnam) and say never again. But many others echo what Mayor Pete we have commitments oversea and we need to honor them. If this debate becomes part of the Democratic party, that leaves the Republicans as the purely greedy and selfish party.

6034

As you point out, interventionism had (has?) a strong strain in the Democratic party. I read Samantha Powers’s A Problem From Hell in the early 2000’s and was also a strong supporter of humanitarian interventionism. I think that a lot of us got a little wary of that position after Iraq II and the neocon disasters of the early 2000’s though. It’s hard to filter a pragmatic foreign policy through the lens of ideology, and blowback has been catastrophic. That said, Democrats aren’t generally isolationists. That’s a policy axis that doesn’t really cleave between the two parties.

6035

IMHO, y’all need to move this discussion to the GOP is morally corrupt and/or Liberals do stupid shit threads…

6036

It’s true that sometimes both things align, or that the US has gotten a bad rap despite pretty good intentions… but, say, this year’s interventions in Ukraine, Ecuador and Venezuela seem much more aligned with defending its economic and geopolitical interests (or those of your leaders) than with any defense of democratic principles.
It doesn’t help that the (previous?) main opposition candidate also threatened its allies over grating asylum to a whistle-blower who revealed the US was spying on them. Or that most Americans either don’t care about any of this, or cheer it.

6037

I mean this will always be the case. A world of democracies is in the interest of America because it’s much better and easier to deal with republics than the Iran, Russias and Chinas of the world.

6038

The interventions in Chile, Nicaragua, Colombia, Guatemala, Iran or Cuba were for implanting stable democratic regimes, sure.

6039

I was referring to supporting Ukraine, but sure. I’m not going to defend Cold War intervention for the most part.

Edit: Or more specifically that any support of democracies is going to be in America’s “geopolitical interests”.
You can’t really use that as a point against those policies, imo.

6040

Just FYI, it’s Samantha Power - she hates it when people add the extra s at the end of her name, per her interview on pod save america.

6041

Nope. I was just saying it’s neither a good or bad concept by itself, it depends. As with most political things, it’s complicated.
And that there’s more ways of intervention than war (although it isn’t called that anymore).

6042

I would hope that Gabbard’s grandstanding the past few weeks will leave her vulnerable to being primaried and losing her seat in the House. The sooner she falls into the dustbin of history the better.

6043

My sweet summer child, she’ll have a show on Fox News if nothing else.

6044

That’s (maybe) fine. Oliver North has one I think, and I don’t have to deal with his nonsense anymore. They’re all essentially interchangeable anyways.

Edit: Oliver North’s ‘War Stories’ went off the air in 2016, after airing for 15(!) years.

6045

One thing that folks need to keep in mind when talking about how neo-con interventionalism ruined everything, is to consider what kinds of stuff we saw prior to that period.

Because it’s still just a series of wars.

There’s never really been a period where everything’s just been cool.

6046

The 1400s were pretty great. The New World ruined everything.

6047

I was gonna put in a word for Pax Romana if you happened to be in the Mediterranean, but there sure was a lot of stuff going on along the borders (e.g. Boudicca’s revolt, Teutoburg Forest, etc.). Also, quite a few despotic and arguably-insane rulers in the nominally peaceful empire.

Gibbon was a fan, though.

6048

I guess maybe there was less war, since more than half of the population of Europe had died from the plague in the 14th century.

6049

In Eastern/Central Europe there was also some very nasty warfare going on between Christian nations (led by Hungary) and the ascendant Ottomans. Not sure how it compares in terms of body count to other pre-modern eras.

6050

On the other hand, there was far less gun crime in the United States than there is today.

6051

That’s because there were no gun regulations!!!