Krauthammer "Democratic Realism" (Must read and bookmark!)

A E I ^ | February 12, 2004 | Charles Krauthammer

[Maria S]

He may be a quadriplegic in a wheelchair, but Charles Krauthammer stands head and shoulders above any other political writer these days...in my opinion. What an intellect!

[PGalt]

Thanks for the post. Very good article. Interesting discussion bump.

[pettifogger]

.

[Vision Thing]

We've dialed Washington, and all we get is a "busy" signal, followed by the demand we legalise the invaders and stop whining!

Wow! Given this serious, broad-ranging article about what we can do for the future of our country and our world, all you can come up with is that?

It's as if Krauthammer has just brought us on a first-time tour of the Grand Canyon to show us how majestic it is, and all you do is complain about that illegal alien over there on the side who is hauling away the trash for the park ranger.

You're missing the point. And the point that you are missing is something that can be important for our future.

[rdb3]

2-B-C

[MEG33]

Piffle...Open up your mind and read the whole speech.

[Reactionary]

"First, because we do not have the imperial culture of Rome. We are an Athenian republic, even more republican and infinitely more democratic than Athens."

We aren't "infinitely more democratic than Athens." After all, the Athenians selected some of their political leaders by drawing lots. We are only "infintely more democratic" in the sense that we are more egalitarian.

[Vision Thing]

Imemind, you sound confused. Meg33 just showed you that K's democratic globalism should be done on a targeted, focused, and limited basis.

But you say, bah humbug, he really wants to exert all out power over everything.

If you read the article, you would see you are wrong. But apparently, you are too lazy to read it, or your capcity for short-term memory is extremely limited. So, for your benefit, I offer the following from the article:

Moreover, democratic globalism is an improvement over realism. What it can teach realism is that the spread of democracy is not just an end but a means, an indispensable means for securing American interests. The reason is simple. Democracies are inherently more friendly to the United States, less belligerent to their neighbors, and generally more inclined to peace. Realists are right that to protect your interests you often have to go around the world bashing bad guys over the head. But that technique, no matter how satisfying, has its limits. At some point, you have to implant something, something organic and self-developing. And that something is democracy.

[Museum Twenty]

Thanks for this post -- The speech was great on C-Span.

[PogySailor]

Wow! I wish I'd seen his speech.

[NovemberCharlie]

An interesting article. You might contrast it with this one, which touches on many of the same points.

[cwb]

Wow! This IS a great article. In fact, there are some nice pieces here, that point to both the hypocrisy and the danger of liberals...who do believe in using force, but not in the national interests of the US. The irony in so much of what liberal utopiates want to accomplish, is that they wouldn't be able to accomplish any of their own goals without the supremacy of the US. That of course, is also part of the hypocrisy, as it is liberals who overwhelmingly use the US military to enforce their ideals of morality and humanitarianism. And yet, it is they who seek to diminsh US supremacy...either through treaties that tie our hands, or their wars, which do nothing to secure US interests...and in many cases, cause the very backlash they accuse Bush of creating with our allies.

Liberals wish to create this global equality, failing to realize that it is only US power that could ever actually impliment such a policy. Their idea that a conglomerate of UN nations, with different ideals, cultures, governments, etc., can somehow unite for common cause and solve the world's problems, when our very own Congress of semi like-minded individuals, can't agree on anything, is naive at best...and dangerous at worst. Liberals seem to think that by binding the US, the rest of the world will be better off...not realizing that it is at those times when the rest of the world most misbehaves and challenges, not just the USA, but the princliples of freedom and democracy, as other countries get threatened by their neighbors...whether it is fascism, socialism, communism or our latest -ism, Islamism. To weaken the US at a time when we are again facing a threatening force is ignorant...yet that is what some Democrats argue when they talk about the UN and multilateralism. Of course, when it is a Democratic president, they never worry about such menial tasks.

[alrea]

it couldn't possibly be out of pride in and respect for the vast majority of Southerners who fought in the Civil War and didn't own slaves could it

Stonewall Jackson dittos. With a name like Krauthammer what do you expect?

[gatorbait]

Well, I think an elitist he may be , but as a Southerner,I do not find him nearly as condescending as his peer group on the Left. By the way, have you ever noticed Southern Liberals seem to feel the need to be even MORE Left than their Northern peers? My theory is that they know the Hahvahd types look down on all of us , so they have to "prove" their worthiness to the cause. Any thoughts on that?

[ZULU]

Krauthammer may not support the Second Amendment, but on foreign policy. simply BRILLIANT! Bish should make him Secretary of State.

[CyberAnt]

I saw some of it, but it's great to read all of it. Thanks for posting this .. and I did Bookmark it.

[FastCoyote]

Brilliant article, but it obviously needs to be fleshed out. It seems half full,

[RWR8189]

Wonderful article!!

Everyone should read this.

[nopardons]

BTT

[Zack Nguyen]

Great post.

Why? No sentient being could believe that, say, the chemical or biological weapons treaties were anything more than transparently useless.

Because leftists are humanists - they believe that their good intentions and meaningful, soulful speeches are enough to sway the masses to give peace a chance. They bvelieve in the absolute power of their words. They are always wrong. Witness Clinton and North Korea. Only a liberal would trust a Communist.