Skip to comments.
Krauthammer "Democratic Realism" (Must read and bookmark!)
A E I ^
| February 12, 2004
| Charles Krauthammer
Posted on 02/15/2004 12:02:50 PM PST by Dutchgirl
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 41-60, 61-80, 81-100 ... 141-153 next last
To: Dutchgirl
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!
61
posted on
02/15/2004 5:42:54 PM PST
by
Maria S
("I will do whatever the Americans want…I saw what happened in Iraq, and I was afraid." Gaddafi, 9/03)
To: Dutchgirl
Thanks for the post. Very good article. Interesting discussion bump.
62
posted on
02/15/2004 5:45:11 PM PST
by
PGalt
To: PGalt
.
To: Gritty
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.
To: Dutchgirl
2-B-C
65
posted on
02/15/2004 6:18:44 PM PST
by
rdb3
(You're fired.)
To: imemind
Piffle...Open up your mind and read the whole speech.
66
posted on
02/15/2004 6:23:22 PM PST
by
MEG33
(John Kerry's been AWOL for two decades on issues of National Security!)
To: Dutchgirl
"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.
To: imemind; MEG33
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.
To: Dutchgirl
Thanks for this post -- The speech was great on C-Span.
69
posted on
02/15/2004 6:47:27 PM PST
by
Museum Twenty
(Support the President - wear the Baseball Cap - display the Bumper Sticker - http://www.ilovew.com .)
To: Dutchgirl
Wow! I wish I'd seen his speech.
To: Dutchgirl
An interesting article. You might contrast it with
this one, which touches on many of the same points.
To: Dutchgirl
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.
72
posted on
02/15/2004 7:17:36 PM PST
by
cwb
(Kerry may have saved one man but he abandoned thousands of others)
To: Aetius
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?
73
posted on
02/15/2004 7:17:41 PM PST
by
alrea
To: Aetius
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?
74
posted on
02/15/2004 7:25:02 PM PST
by
gatorbait
(Yesterday, today and tomorrow......The United States Army)
To: Dutchgirl
Krauthammer may not support the Second Amendment, but on foreign policy. simply BRILLIANT! Bish should make him Secretary of State.
75
posted on
02/15/2004 7:56:25 PM PST
by
ZULU
(GOD BLESS SENATOR JOE MCCARTHY!!!)
To: Dutchgirl
I saw some of it, but it's great to read all of it. Thanks for posting this .. and I did Bookmark it.
76
posted on
02/15/2004 8:50:25 PM PST
by
CyberAnt
(The 2004 Election is for the SOUL of AMERICA)
To: GretchenEE
Brilliant article, but it obviously needs to be fleshed out. It seems half full,
To: All
Wonderful article!!
Everyone should read this.
78
posted on
02/15/2004 9:46:12 PM PST
by
RWR8189
(Its Morning in America Again!)
To: Dutchgirl
BTT
To: Dutchgirl
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.
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 41-60, 61-80, 81-100 ... 141-153 next last
Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson