SUBSIM Radio Room Forums - Values: Conservative vs. Liberal

SUBSIM Radio Room Forums (https://www.subsim.com/radioroom/index.php)

- General Topics (https://www.subsim.com/radioroom/forumdisplay.php?f=175)

- - Values: Conservative vs. Liberal (https://www.subsim.com/radioroom/showthread.php?t=153430)

I wonder what Kissinger would have to say on this thread polarising "liberal" versus "conservative" - which is the initial thinking error here that dooms this thinking to be uncomplete, dogmatic and misleading from the very beginning.

I refuse to think in such conceptions and feeding polarisation for the sake of polarisation itself. Let'S pick up what works for the good of the single man as well as for the good of the community (but the first not exploiting his freedom at the cost of the latter), and leave out what doesn't work for that in a world that is tried to be perceived as realistic and objective as possible. Designing a policy on the basis of an ideology's morals only, is questionable, and often does more bad than good. This is the very big mistake especially American conservatives often make - not to adress reality like it is, but serving their ideologic mental image of how according to their morals reality should be in theory, and then trying to deal with it on the basis of this image instead of reality as it is. This is what Kissinger says in the interview when comparing Obama and Bush.

http://www.spiegel.de/international/...634400,00.html

Quote:

(...)

SPIEGEL: In Paris we saw the clash of two foreign policy principles: the idealism embodied by Wilson who encountered a kind of realpolitik embodied by the Europeans which was above all based on the law of the strongest. Can you explain the failure of the American approach?

Kissinger: The American view was that peace is the normal condition among states. To ensure lasting peace, an international system must be organized on the basis of domestic institutions everywhere, which reflect the will of the people, and that will of the people is considered always to be against war. Unfortunately, there is no historic evidence that this is true.

(...)

SPIEGEL: Despite the failure of Versailles, this Wilsonian idea is remarkably prevalent. Is our affinity to the ideals of democracy perhaps naïve?

Kissinger: The belief in democracy as a universal remedy regularly reappears in American foreign policy. Its most recent appearance came with the so-called neocons in the Bush administration. Actually, Obama is much closer to a realistic policy on this issue than Bush was.

(...)

Kissinger: Cynics treat values as equivalent and instrumental. Statesmen base practical decisions on moral convictions. It is always easy to divide the world into idealists and power-oriented people. The idealists are presumed to be the noble people, and the power-oriented people are the ones that cause all the world's trouble. But I believe more suffering has been caused by prophets than by statesmen. For me, a sensible definition of realpolitik is to say there are objective circumstances without which foreign policy cannot be conducted. To try to deal with the fate of nations without looking at the circumstances with which they have to deal is escapism. The art of good foreign policy is to understand and to take into consideration the values of a society, to realize them at the outer limit of the possible.

SPIEGEL: What if values cannot be taken into consideration because they are inhuman or too expansive?

Kissinger: In that case, resistance is needed. In Iran, for example, you need to ask the question of whether you have to have a regime change before you can conceive a set of circumstances where each side maintaining its values comes to some understanding.

(...)

Kissinger: I see two possibilities. We will either come to an understanding with Iran, or we will clash. As a democratic society we cannot justify the clash to our own people unless we can show that we have made a serious effort to avoid it. By that, I don't mean that we have to make every concession they demand, but we are obligated to put forward ideas the American people can support.The upheaval in Teheran must run its course before these possibilities can be explored.

(...)

SPIEGEL: So you are calling for a kind of realistic idealism?

Kissinger: Exactly. There is no realism without an element of idealism. The idea of abstract power only exists for academics, not in real life.

SPIEGEL: Do you think it was helpful for Obama to deliver a speech to the Islamic world in Cairo? Or has he created a lot of illusions about what politics can deliver?

Kissinger: Obama is like a chess player who is playing simultaneous chess and has opened his game with an unusual opening. Now he's got to play his hand as he plays his various counterparts. We haven't gotten beyond the opening game move yet. I have no quarrel with the opening move.

SPIEGEL: But is what we have seen so far from him truly realpolitik?

Kissinger: It is also too early to say that. If what he wants to do is convey to the Islamic world that America has an open attitude to dialogue and is not determined on physical confrontation as its only strategy, then it can play a very useful role. If it were to be continued on the belief that every crisis can be managed by a philosophical speech, then he will run into Wilsonian problems.

(...)

SPIEGEL: Do concepts like "good" and "evil" make sense in the context of foreign policy?

Kissinger: Yes, but generally in gradations. Rarely in absolutes. I think there are kinds of evil that need to be condemned and destroyed, and one should not apologize for that. But one should not use the existence of evil as an excuse for those who think that they represent good to insist on an unlimited right to impose their definition of their values.

(...)

SPIEGEL: Would you go so far as to say what we are seeing is end of major wars?

Kissinger: I believe that Obama has a unique chance to conduct a peaceful American foreign policy. I do not see any conflicts between suchmajor countries, China, Russia, India, and the U.S., which will justify a military solution. Therefore, there is an opportunity for a diplomatic effort. Moreover, the economic crisis does not permit countries to devote a historic percentage of their resources to military conflict. I am structurally more optimistic than a couple of years ago.

SPIEGEL: The situation in Iran doesn't make you fearful?

Kissinger: Fear is not a good motivation for statesmanship. It could be that some kind of at least local conflict will happen, but it does not have to happen. Iran is a relatively weak and small country that has inherent limits to its capabilities. The relationship of China with the rest of the world is a lot more important in historic terms than the Iranian issues by themselves.

Max2147 - I think thats the point of this. Its not so much "crafty writing" (though I appreciate the compliment), but in reality Buddahaid is trying to get people to see that we are often more in agreement than we realize. We have allowed the extremes on BOTH sides to create this "divide" when, working together, we could all be much more effective in solving issues.

True, the biggest disagreements would be on HOW to handle problems - but once we recognize that we really see the same problems, working toward common solutions is much easier. That is why BOTH sides spew hate and vitriol and paint the "other side" as all a bunch of wacko extremists. When in reality its not about "sides" - it should be about solutions.

Only by getting past the "conservative" or "liberal" bias and looking at things by issues - without prejudging someone else who may have a different opinion, will we be able to work together to solve the issues our society faces. This is why I am independant - because to me, I would rather talk issues than call someone "names".

Someone please put up a "liberal" answer - so we can see how truly center the most of us are, and how the parties have divided us.

Quote:

Originally Posted by CaptainHaplo (Post 1129518)

The way I saw it, you gave a mainstream answer as the conservative position, then gave a radical leftist answer as the liberal position. In other words, you were basically saying conservatives = good guys while you were slandering the liberals.

I was writing my own list last night, but I got too tired. I'll probably finish it up today.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Skybird (Post 1129512)

I may be misunderstanding your post. I'm looking for the bits that work we can all stand beside together, as well as those that polarize, and hoping to find a general overlap of ideals that is greater than the remainder. Where to start is up to who responds and in what manner. While I admit I'm focusing on US political stances, the ideals are applicable almost everywhere even if the details differ. After this thread has died out it may be useful to consider the points of conflict on a one by one basis.

Neal, feel free to kill this (as if I need to say that) whenever it gets out of control, but I'll try to mediate and keep things civil.

Buddahaid

Quote:

Social and Economic Equality - here is the big one.
Conservitism - you have the right to ATTAIN - solely by your own efforts - social and economic equality.
Liberalism - You have the right to be equal to everyone else. If a rich person makes $16k a month, $14k of it should be taken, and redistributed to 7 other people, so everyone has $2k a month. That is equality.

That isn't equality, that is stealing. If I were to go to a bank and ask for the same thing what would you call it? The bank has more money than me and I should, by your example be entitled to part of those funds.

Liberals do not believe in private property...that is what you are saying.

I told you this could turn bad.

Quote:

Originally Posted by CastleBravo (Post 1129833)

I'll repeat.
Neal, feel free to kill this (as if I need to say that) whenever it gets out of control, but I'll try to mediate and keep things civil.

Buddahaid

Quote:

Life: A person's right to life can't be violated except if your life or the lives of others is threatened.
Liberty: This includes personal freedom, political freedom, and economic freedom. This is the freedom for people to gather in groups. They have their own beliefs, ideas and opinions. People also have the right to express their opinions in public.

Personal Freedom - the right to think and act without government control.
Political Freedom - the right to participate in political process.
Economic Freedom - the right to buy, sell and trade private property and the right to employment without the government interfering.

Why is one's right to life more important than another's? If it is it isn't a right. It is called murder.
Personal freedom does not extend to the death of another.
Economic freedom is always dependent on the more mature. If you have no right access to economic freedom you must take that into account.

I read that as allowing for self defense cases or police shootouts. In a self defense situation, it often is ruled as a murder, or manslaughter, when carried past having control of the situation, as in after having wounded and disarmed the assailant, putting another shot to the head or wherever.

I'm not sure I understand what your meaning is on economic freedom.

Anyway, glad you've decided to talk. On my way home now.

Buddahaid

Max - I admit I gave mainstream vs fringe answers. The liberalism that is pushed today is pushed by the fringe left. And yes - there are conservative fringe views - but they are not what is put forth in the public, like the extreme liberal views are. Thats the difference.

I look forward to your list - not because I want to differ with it - but because I think in listing what I suspect is mainstream "liberal" thought, we will find that both sides are alot more "center" than fringe.

The fringe left is hardly in control of liberalism. If you look at the last two Democratic presidents, Clinton was a centrist and Obama is a pragmatist who people think is a lot more liberal than he actually is.

Why are you Americans so obsessed with this kind of dualistic thinking? Republicans versus Democrats? Conservative versus Liberal? american versus Socuialist? what sense is there in calling yourself this or that when you are not in order yourself, and do not rest in yourself, no matter how you call the state you are in?

I fail to see what you will reach when thinking in such conceptions. Aren't there better standards by which to decide on your deeds and actions, and whom you call friend and whom not?

This is by Marc Aurel, from the "Meditations", book IV. There are so many other quotes possible. If you do not know it, get a copy and read it. It is, imo, one jewel of world literature.

Quote:

Men seek retreats for themselves, houses in the country, sea-shores, and mountains; and thou too art wont to desire such things very much. But this is altogether a mark of the most common sort of men, for it is in thy power whenever thou shalt choose to retire into thyself. For nowhere either with more quiet or more freedom from trouble does a man retire than into his own soul, particularly when he has within him such thoughts that by looking into them he is immediately in perfect tranquility; and I affirm that tranquility is nothing else than the good ordering of the mind. Constantly then give to thyself this retreat, and renew thyself; and let thy principles be brief and fundamental, which, as soon as thou shalt recur to them, will be sufficient to cleanse the soul completely, and to send thee back free from all discontent with the things to which thou returnest. For with what art thou discontented? With the badness of men? Recall to thy mind this conclusion, that rational animals exist for one another, and that to endure is a part of justice, and that men do wrong involuntarily; and consider how many already, after mutual enmity, suspicion, hatred, and fighting, have been stretched dead, reduced to ashes; and be quiet at last.- But perhaps thou art dissatisfied with that which is assigned to thee out of the universe.- Recall to thy recollection this alternative; either there is providence or atoms, fortuitous concurrence of things; or remember the arguments by which it has been proved that the world is a kind of political community, and be quiet at last.- But perhaps corporeal things will still fasten upon thee.- Consider then further that the mind mingles not with the breath, whether moving gently or violently, when it has once drawn itself apart and discovered its own power, and think also of all that thou hast heard and assented to about pain and pleasure, and be quiet at last.- But perhaps the desire of the thing called fame will torment thee.- See how soon everything is forgotten, and look at the chaos of infinite time on each side of the present, and the emptiness of applause, and the changeableness and want of judgement in those who pretend to give praise, and the narrowness of the space within which it is circumscribed, and be quiet at last. For the whole earth is a point, and how small a nook in it is this thy dwelling, and how few are there in it, and what kind of people are they who will praise thee.

This then remains: Remember to retire into this little territory of thy own, and above all do not distract or strain thyself, but be free, and look at things as a man, as a human being, as a citizen, as a mortal. But among the things readiest to thy hand to which thou shalt turn, let there be these, which are two. One is that things do not touch the soul, for they are external and remain immovable; but our perturbations come only from the opinion which is within. The other is that all these things, which thou seest, change immediately and will no longer be; and constantly bear in mind how many of these changes thou hast already witnessed. The universe is transformation: life is opinion.

Step beyond dualism. Stop thinking in such dualistic terms. Simply refuse to do so. You will learn quickly that you live in a much wider world then. there is no peace possible in the world were people do not understand this, and do not break through to such an attidue of mind. It is much more importan than even the most consequent definitions of "Liberal" versus "Conservative". Stop wasting your time.

I don't for a minute believe this is an American disease. It is an almost universal symptom of two party systems, and entirely in line with human thought processes of comparing oneself to others, and viewing those who are different as potential threats. That's human nature and is likely the single most important aspect in driving us to the thinking, problem solving beings we are today. In my opinion.

Skybird you would seem a learned person, who reads and can think deep. By that I mean keep ones mind focused on a subject and think it through. I would hope, no, expect you to see the discord as unproductive wasted energy. The problem to me is that far to many people, at least here in the US, don't read at all, barely get through an education, and form their alliances based on sound bites and hyperbole. Just choose sides by whatever slogans strike a chord, and go with it as if it were a football team. I would like to blame TV as the largest contributer to the problem, but it also existed before it's advent. People used to find their entertainment in actually talking with their families and reading books.

I also don't think this applies to the people on this forum, at least to any great degree.

Buddahaid

Quote:

Originally Posted by Max2147 (Post 1129907)

That is only true when you keep moving the bar to the left. And based on his policies to date Mr. Obama is the most far left president this nation has ever seen.

Remember the stimulus package was direly urgent to ward off 8% unemployment.......that didn't work. GM and the financial institutions beholden to tzars who don't report to anyone but BHO? Sounds leftist to me and anyother thinking person.

Quote:

Originally Posted by CastleBravo (Post 1129965)

Remember the stimulus package was direly urgent to ward off 8% unemployment.......that didn't work. GM and the financial institutions beholden to tzars who don't report to anyone but BHO? Sounds leftist to me and anyother thinking person.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_...us_Act_of_2008

Rationale

As 2008 began, economic indicators suggested an increased risk of recession. Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke testified before Congress that quick action was needed to stimulate the economy through targeted government spending and tax incentives.[10] Congress moved rapidly to pass such legislation. In passing the legislation, lawmakers aimed to stimulate spending by businesses and consumers during 2008. They hoped that the targeted individual tax rebates would boost consumer spending and that targeted tax incentives would boost business spending.
Lawmakers raised the limits on conforming mortgages eligible for government insurance and GSE purchase in response to the subprime mortgage crisis. This crisis had resulted in a widespread credit crunch by late 2007. The credit crunch led to a reluctance by lenders to issue so-called jumbo mortgages for the purchase of houses that exceeded the FHA and GSE limits. The United States housing bubble had pushed house prices above those limits in many areas of the country. As interest rates rose for jumbo mortgages, fewer buyers could afford them, and house prices were being forced down toward the limits for conforming mortgages. By raising those limits, lawmakers hoped to slow or halt the decline in house prices, which threatened the financial well-being of homeowners, banks and other financial entities holding jumbo mortgages.
The FHA loan limits also went up with the stimulus package on March 6. The loan limit package is called "FHA Forward."[11]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/America...nt_Act_of_2009

Assessments by economists

Economists such as Martin Feldstein, Daron Acemoglu, National Economic Council director Larry Summers, and Nobel Memorial Prize in Economic Sciences winners Joseph Stiglitz [33] and Paul Krugman [34] favor large economic stimulus to counter the economic downturn. While in favor of a stimulus package, Feldstein expressed concern over the act as written, saying it needs revision to address consumer spending and unemployment more directly.[35] Other economists, including John Lott,[36] Robert Barro and Nobel Prize-winners Robert Lucas, Jr.,[37] Vernon L. Smith, Edward C. Prescott and James M. Buchanan have been more critical of the government spending.
On January 28, 2009, a full page advertisement with the names of approximately 200 economists who are against President Obama's plan appeared in The New York Times and The Wall Street Journal. The funding for this advertisement came from the Cato Institute. The ad stated

... we the undersigned do not believe that more government spending is a way to improve economic performance. More government spending by Hoover and Roosevelt did not pull the United States economy out of the Great Depression in the 1930s... To improve the economy, policymakers should focus on reforms that remove impediments to work, savings, investment, and production. Lower tax rates and a reduction in the burden of government are the best ways of using fiscal policy to boost growth."[38][39]

On March 11, 2009, The Wall Street Journal published a forecasting survey of 49 economists about the bill's impact in regards to the Obama administration. President Obama and United States Secretary of the Treasury Timothy F. Geithner received failing grades, in the opinion of these economists, for their handling of the economic crisis and stimulus plan. Critics were divided over the bill, with 43% saying $500 billion more would be needed, while others were "skeptical of the need for stimulus at all."[40]

Just for reference.

Buddahaid

Why is it the left is always wrong? Based on your post even the economists on the left blew it.:damn::damn::damn: