A380
How do I change this 'custom title' thing then?
Ha ha haha, oh my sides.
A United Front for a Sane Foreign Policy? Can Left and Right co operate?
- Thread starter VirulentNeoCon
- Start date
VirulentNeoCon
... and yet, it moves.
Careful with those sides! But I get it ... limited attention span. I blame social media.
platinumsage
HaveMyPassword123
Is that why you haven’t articulated this supposed foreign policy yet?
A380
How do I change this 'custom title' thing then?
Dom Traynor
Tino Pai
VirulentNeoCon I am in New Zealand by the way so keep that in mind.
Whoops sorry pressed post too soon - will comment below shortly.
Whoops sorry pressed post too soon - will comment below shortly.
VirulentNeoCon
... and yet, it moves.
Okay, I'm in the UK, although I am an American. But the magic of the internet lets us interfere in other peoples political affairs all over the world, maybe with a VPN.
I've had extensive debates with supposed 'Boogaloo Bois', who were urging fellow Americans to move towards armed confrontations with the police, and who
I'm pretty sure were sitting in St Petersburg, part of the glavset group. But their English was near-perfect, and I had no way to prove it.
Dom Traynor
Tino Pai
I think there is a place for right and left pulling the same direction on certain things, environment, averting WW3 etc existential crises. I certainly wouldn't have opposed the left working as most did to support the Allies in WW2 (yes I'm aware of how that worked for the pro-Soviet left).
I would also argue that identity politics and cancel culture are currently a problem for the right and the left, especially on the extremes of both.
I think in the UK it's been interesting in recent years to see how the broad liberal left have taken conservative commentator Peter Oborne slightly into their fold as he tries to fly the flag for what I would describe as a good faith conservatism, as in believing that his values will mean a better society for all, rather than a way to get contracts for your mates or to oppress big swathes of society.
I think that the Citizens UK / London Citizens / Alinsky model of alliances between unions, community and faith groups irrespective of party allegence is a good model for winning urgent change around specific issues like low wages and asylum seekers rights and knife crime.
However what I meant in my previous post about your method not having changed from the Spart days is that your intervention in this and the previous thread is exactly the early 2000's equivalent of standing outside a pointless but maybe comforting for those involved far left meeting handing out leaflets hoping to slowly win one or two already irrelevant people over from one tedious and irrelevant group to another.
It's not about appealing to the elite but it is about identifying where what you want is already happening or could happen with people who actually have some social weight and represent meaningful organisations or movements or communities and engaging with them.
I would also argue that identity politics and cancel culture are currently a problem for the right and the left, especially on the extremes of both.
I think in the UK it's been interesting in recent years to see how the broad liberal left have taken conservative commentator Peter Oborne slightly into their fold as he tries to fly the flag for what I would describe as a good faith conservatism, as in believing that his values will mean a better society for all, rather than a way to get contracts for your mates or to oppress big swathes of society.
I think that the Citizens UK / London Citizens / Alinsky model of alliances between unions, community and faith groups irrespective of party allegence is a good model for winning urgent change around specific issues like low wages and asylum seekers rights and knife crime.
However what I meant in my previous post about your method not having changed from the Spart days is that your intervention in this and the previous thread is exactly the early 2000's equivalent of standing outside a pointless but maybe comforting for those involved far left meeting handing out leaflets hoping to slowly win one or two already irrelevant people over from one tedious and irrelevant group to another.
It's not about appealing to the elite but it is about identifying where what you want is already happening or could happen with people who actually have some social weight and represent meaningful organisations or movements or communities and engaging with them.
VirulentNeoCon
... and yet, it moves.
No, I'm not proposing that you directly talk to Americans. But there are plenty of things people can do, if they're willing to spend a couple of hours a week (or more)1) as I understand it, Alex Jones, as you'd expect from a 9/11 truther, is on the isolationist/anti-intervention wing of the right anyway - see, for instance:
2) Alex Jones' considerable following on the right is not particularly influenced by what hitmouse from off of urban75 says either way, when he opposed Trump's airstrikes on Syria that was not cos I told him to do it.
Infowars’ Alex Jones Cries on Air Over Syria Strikes: “Trump Is Crapping All Over Us”
Several prominent conservative pundits criticized the president for the decision to launch airstrikes against Syria.slate.com
3) I wasn't actually talking about American interventions in the third world, just making a daft joke running with the WWIII/WWW3 confusion.
on the internet.
A campaign requires saturating the target. We would need to be able to get our message in front of lots of people, over and over, everywhere -- on Youtube comments for example.
The problem right now is that the rank and file Right's lack of enthusiasm for foreign interventions is inchoate ... when primary time comes around, it won't be an issue ... they'll pay attention
to other things.
What's needed is to put this front and center, and to have some concrete thing ... a petition? ... around which to organize. I'm not really sure at this point, what that might be ... which is why
I want to have serious discussion with others, especially people who have experience of campaigning ... found mostly on the Left.
VirulentNeoCon
... and yet, it moves.
I'm on this side of the pond as well -- assuming you mean the UK. And, in my experience, so far as Lefties go, there is little difference. Among the Right, there is a much greater difference.
VirulentNeoCon
... and yet, it moves.
Okay, I see what you're saying. A couple of points.
Right now, I need to find some collaborators. Mainly people who can kick around ideas .... I've got a couple already, but we're not at critical mass yet. So I'm just 'handing out leaflets' so to speak.
And yes, there is scope for co operation on a number of things. For example, that wing of the Left who are not pro-Stalinist/authoritarian, and that wing or rather those individuals on the
Right who take an interest in other countries, could do something, easily, to provide some support for small-d democrats in authoritarian regimes -- even if this was just psychological. Things
like signing up to their blogs or newsletters. As an example, if you don't know of it, the Havana Times (Havana Times) -- an outlet for Cuban dissidents -- some of whom are self-proclaimed socialists, by the way. There are similar ones in other countries.
As for identity politics being a problem of the Right as well as of the Left ... yes, but in our case, it's the problem of racial chauvinism. It's not a real problem yet, but the potential is there, and there
are some very determined, sophisticated people who would like to fan the flames.
And I'll tell you something else that's interesting. I'm also working on developing a network of conservative trade unionists in the US. Still in its infancy, but there really is no reason for the average Republican voter to oppose the unionization of Amazon ... or any other big corporation. But that's for the future. Have a look here: [ American Compass | The New Conservative Flagship ]
Oh yes, one more point, which I didn't make clear (or at all): We would each work our respective sides of the street. I, and people who think like me, would hit the conservatives, and you and those who think like you, the liberals. For example, suppose we decided on a Pledge that we would want every candidate for national office to sign before we supported him/her. (I'm not proposing this exact idea, just using it to illustrate a point.) It would be up to each side to circulate it, argue for it, etc among their co-thinkers.
The very existence of such a thing, of such an alliance, would by itself, I think, generate interest, maybe a lot of it.
Last edited:
Carl Steele
Well-Known Member
Is this by any chance your idea of how to cash in on being an ex-leftist? Like Bret Weinstein and his nonsensical Unity2020 grift, sensible people right and left must unite to be funded by the remaining Koch brother. You might be better to take the Dave Rubin route and move to Florida.
VirulentNeoCon
... and yet, it moves.
No. Although if Koch/Soros got behind something like this, it would be great. I don't know who Dave Rubin is, althogh I'll find out.
As for money, anything like this that does attract money, needs to keep very careful, meticulous records of what comes in, and how it is used. There are plenty of grifters
on the Right -- I don't know about the Left -- whose sold aim is to pull in money.
Why are you hostile to this idea? The neo-cons wouldn't like it, for sure. The people who now influence/imlement American foreign policy wouldn't like it.
But surely it ought to be something that people like youi -- who, I assume, are some sort of Leftist -- could get behind.
Kevbad the Bad
Amiable Bowel Syndrome
This thread is getting very long. In answer to the question, Can Left and Right co-operate? No.
rekil
to menny cranks
VirulentNeoCon
... and yet, it moves.
Yes, you're right. But that's a more difficult issue. It's worth discussing. I'm not so sure that Left and Right - not just in the US, but in the Free World generally -- could agree on an overal 'Grand Strategy', as they call it int he trade, but a basic agreement on no more armed interventions would be a good start.
For one thing, there is a strong strand on the Right that says, "Who cares whether they get democracy in Kazakhstan? Screw 'em, not my problem." (That's not my position, by the way.) But they
do understand that -- to put it in their terms -- American soldiers should not be trying to set the world to rights in places where they are not wanted. So I want them on my side.
If you haven't read him, I urge you to read a cuople of essays by someone who is probably unknown to most political people, but who has clarified a lot of things for me:
America as a "Phantom Empire"
New Book: Public Choice Theory and the Illusion of Grand Strategy
Today marks the release of my book, Public Choice Theory and the Illusion of Grand Strategy: How Generals, Weapons Manufacturers, and Foreign Governments Shape American Foreign Policy. Here it is on Amazon and Google Books.
richardhanania.substack.com
He, speaking from what I believe to be inside knowledge, lays out how American foreign policy really works, how these decisions get made. Do read it.
VirulentNeoCon
... and yet, it moves.
Okay, fair point. A very brief summary: what the West -- the liberal democracies -- should do is, first of all, to promote economic (and therefore social) growth in the Third World.
I won't try to justify this in this brief reply, but a strong middle class is a pre-requisite to a society's achieving a stable democracy.
Case in point: Iran, where the mullahs wisely have promoted education, even among women, because if you want a strong society, you want lots of engineers and technicians. But ... educated
people are less likely to blindly follow dogmatic clerics. (When women get educated, they stop being baby-making machines. Thus the birth rate in Iran has fallen below replacement level, just as
in the West.)
The Cuban leadership are aching to follow the Chinese road and liberalize their economy. End the blockade, and flood Cuba with Yankee tourists looking for a cheap holiday. The Cubans do
a good job educating doctors for Latin America --- propose turning Guantanamo into a giant medical college. Offer scholarships to Cuban young people to study in America for year. Communism
wil be gone, or transformed into something very diferent and more liberal, in ten years.
Secondly, we -- Americans especially -- have to recognize that other people love their countries just as Americans love theirs. Patriotism is -- at this stage in human social evolution -- a near universal.
In particular, we have to try to understand how the Russian people, and the Chinese people, view the West. I cannot speak for American liberals, but the only thing that most Americans on the Right know about China and the Communists there is that "Mao Tse Tung was the greatest mass murderer of all time". Ask them about the Taiping Rebellion, the looting of the Summer Palace -- the growth in literacy and mass health under the Communists .. and you draw a blank.
They think that America defeated the Nazis in WWII, almost single-handedly. Even the late Alan Clark acknowledeges that the real war was on the Eastern Front, where sometimes up to 90%, and never less than 75%, of the Wehrmacht was engaged. It was the Russians who defeated Hitler, and they paid the 'Iron Price' -- for every American who died in that war, 100 Russians died.
Did Stalin seek to conquer the world? Maybe ... but he withdrew the Red Army from Austria, after reassurances that that country would remain neutral. He could have conquered Finland, but didn't, after
reassurances that that country would remain neutral. So maybe what the Russsians fear is the West, which has invaded them four time in the last two centuries, Might that not explain what's happening in Ukraine right now, and possibly point the way to a solution?
Why don't we work out a deal: Ukraine to remain out of NATO. A referendum in Donbass to see whether they remain part of Ukraine, or become part of Russia. (A dangerous precedent for the Russians, by the way, given those Muslim Republics.) And then a new Marshall Plan for Ukraine -- turn it into a beacon of liberty and prosperity, far more menacing to the oligarchs in Russia than American troops there would be.
I could go on, but I won't. What I'm saying is: let's do something, now.
We have an opportunity that may not come again. If there is a war involving the US then my side will return to its "USA ALL THE WAY,!!!" ultra patriotism.
We might be able to prevent that. It's worth a shot.
VirulentNeoCon
... and yet, it moves.
I think I understand the mentality of many of the jaded, oh-so-sophisticated Lefties here, trying to show how smart they are.
You know that socialism is dead. A big disappointment to you. So you spend your time indulging yourselves in various ways, withdrawn from real politics.
Fine, free country and all that. So go back to your XBoxes or whatever. (You're not as clever as you think you are, by the way. I would be embarrassed to admit that I could not
read a few hundred words, but to each his own.)
You know that socialism is dead. A big disappointment to you. So you spend your time indulging yourselves in various ways, withdrawn from real politics.
Fine, free country and all that. So go back to your XBoxes or whatever. (You're not as clever as you think you are, by the way. I would be embarrassed to admit that I could not
read a few hundred words, but to each his own.)
krtek a houby
Anger is Hi-NRG
Your sneering holier than thou tone does you no favours, whatsoever.
That's just one of the many reasons there will be no alliance between your right wing and the left.
8ball
Maximum Facepalm
I’d say he’s settling into the house style pretty rapidly.
Still a little on the verbose side..
Colin Hunt
Active Member
Finally a popular front policy that I can get behind.
Seriously though this is one of the most bizarre foreign policy ideas I've ever heard. Although I also like your desire to carve up Ukraine to somehow bolster Russian Muslim independence movements - through a mechanism that you never quite got round to explaining.
Dom Traynor
Tino Pai
I think you will find that a few of the lefties on here don't know that socialism is dead and are still plowing the furrows in tiny revolutionary propaganda groups (though more on the Anarcho side) or were last active in support of Corbyn.
VirulentNeoCon
... and yet, it moves.
Well, best of luck to them. But ... surely they believe that their movement will grow, not mainly through abstract propaganda, but through involvement in struggle.
And the struggle to prevent war is as good as you can get -- albeit it's in the US that I'm proposing to work, not the UK. But if any of them are in the US, I'm offering
them an arena within which to work, that might bring them into contat with real, genuine, honest-to-goodness working class people. Real ones, not paper abstractions.
We almost had a campaign going for a fellow who was fired for being a 'whistle blower' over fire safety at a big casino in North Carolina. I thought it would be -- in addition
to being a just cause in itself -- a great opportunity to get people on the Right involved in something that would raise the issue of unionization, and why patriots should
support it. (He didn't have a union where he worked, but after he -- and his wife -- were sacked, he wanted to organize one.)
It didn't pan out, but I'm still looking for a similar opportunity. More about him here, in a Fox News interview: )
Dystopiary
putting up a hook to hang my hopes upon
Indulging, wow. Just a few words: class is a thing. HTH.
VirulentNeoCon
... and yet, it moves.
What don't you agree with? I assume you know that much of the base of American liberalism is reflexively anti-foreign wars of choice. Perhaps you think the base of American conservatism is still reflexively supportive of wars of choice. If you do think that, you are mistaken.
So ... what's wrong wtih the idea of trying to take advantage of this -- perhaps only conjunctural -- co-incidence of views, to give it focus?
As for 'carving up' Ukraine: national boundaries are not sacred. Most of them were consolidated by naked force anyway.. If the Scots want to leave, they should be allwoed to.
Ditto the Quebecois. So why not the Donbass. Who was it who championed 'the right of nations to self-determination'? Some Russian guy, as I recall .. name started with L ... Lermontov?
Something like that.
As for the Muslim Republics ... again, if they want to leave, let them. Although hopefully they won't do a repeat of what the ?Chechens did and turn into bases for organized crime. In any
case, if the Russian oligarchy want to start adjusting other country's borders, it's not a bad thing to make them think that two can play at that game. [ Prisoners of the Caucasus ]
VirulentNeoCon
... and yet, it moves.
Nope. Meet me half way, and we can have a civil discussion, or argument. But most of the lefties here can't do that. They can just post one-liners
to show each other how clever they are. I don't sneer at the ones who do this, I just have contempt for them.
krtek a houby
Anger is Hi-NRG
You've been here 5 minutes and you think you have a grasp of the community. What do you mean when you say "most of the lefties"?
Wading in to an established community, hurling insults and sneering at those who disagree with your pov isn't going to endear folks to your argument.
Why would people on the left want to ally themselves with you?
Colin Hunt
Active Member
I just don't believe that turning Guantanamo Bay into a medical school is an example of sane foreign policy.
I'm aware that national boundaries are not sacred. However, your proposal was to hold referenda on becoming part of Russia, in regions currently controlled by Russia. My question was simply how on Earth would that destabilise the Muslim republics of Russia? Maybe instead of bleating about Lenin you could provide evidence of your thought process?
But Russia won't let them leave. So far your only concrete suggestion for foreign policy seems to adjust Russian borders by handing them territory, in the vague hope that this will catalyse a Chechen independence movement. From my perspective that's about as far from sane as possible.
VirulentNeoCon
... and yet, it moves.
Ok. First, Cuba. I'm sure you're aware of what US foreign policy towards Cuba has been for the last sixty years. Hasn't worked. There is plenty of discontent in Cuba -- when I travelled around there a few years ago, I didn't meet one supporter of the regime. I stayed in casas familiares, private homes which were allowed to rent rooms to foreigners, so of course I didn't meet a representative sample of the population, but it's clear to me that most Cubans are not happy with the current situation. But ... they're not going to support a Yanqui invasion. So ... Love Bomb 'em!
It's a point of pride with the Cuban leadership, and probably with a lot of the population as well, that Cuba trains lots of medical personnel from various Latin American countries, and also sends its medical people abroad. And Guantanamo -- taken from Cuba after the Spanish-American War -- is Cuban. We should give it back ... but, at the same time, let's be imaginative about it. The Cuban regime exists, and justifies its draconian policies, by pointing to Yanqui hostility. So let's remove that excuse. Imagine how that would resound throughout Latin America: the Yankees want to build a large, modern medical training facility, for the whole continent. We supply the money and equipment, the Cubans supply the teachers. It's called political judo.
On Ukraine. I don't know how much of the Donbass' population are genuine separatists. I lived for a few months in Kharkov (now Kharkiv), in 1985, and I know there was and probably still is a substantial minority of the population who are pro-Russian. Of course, a referendum would have to be supervised by some neutral, outside agency, like the UN. But the principle of self-determination should be one we uphold. It would set a precedent for elsewhere, including in the Muslim republics. Of course the Kremlin wants to hold on to them, just as they would have preferred to keep hold of Eastern Europe -- but it may eventually decide that it isn't worth it. Not to mention that ordinary Russians aren't celebrating Muslim diversity and would probably not be heartbroken to see them go:
Ethnic Russians in Moscow Forming Self-Defense Units Against Non-Russian Migrants
On the eve of this year’s Day of National Unity, on November 4, ethnic Russians and migrant workers clashed in a Moscow neighborhood, leading to a media circus in which Margarita Simonyan of RT denounced “persons of Caucasus nationality” for attacking Russians. Chechen leader Ramzan Kadyrov...
The whole point is, these awful regimes -- in Russia, China, Iran -- do have a substantial base of popular support, because they are seen to be asserting national dignity. We want to undermne that, by removing as many excuses as possible for regime repression and belligerence, so that we can see a the growth within those countries of forces who want to normalize relations with us.
The Russians do have a legitimate point, in their own eyes, regarding NATO expansion to their borders -- which, they were promised back in the early 90's, would not happen. They don't want American forces on their border, any more than the Americans would be happy with Chinese bases on the Mexican border. Isn't that obvious?
It isn't just Putin that doesn't want NATO on the Russian border. Since many people here are on the Left, I commend this article onUkraine by a socialist:Ukraine Crisis in Imperial Context ---
He gets it: From the article linked to above: "... many pretentious commentators don’t get the point: No Russian government of any stripe can tolerate NATO expanding to Ukraine. It means war.
The fact that president-for-life Putin runs a gangster regime — which he does, including murderous operations at home and abroad — is not the issue here. The most liberal, democratic imaginable Russian regime couldn’t allow a traditionally hostile Western military alliance setting up shop on a border about 300 miles of largely flat plain from Moscow."
Okay, too long again.
Summary: the democratic powers need to wage political warfare, removing the excuses for the despots' actions, encouraging the growth of a middle class in the countries which are now hostile to us.
This is not pacifism. Of course we should remain armed to the teeth. As Al Capone probably didn't say, but is true nonetheless, "You can get a lot further in life with a kind word, and a gun, than you can with a kind word alone." A gun and a kind word.
In Vietnam, there was always talk about "winning the hearts and minds of the people." The oh-so-tough response was, "Get 'em by the balls and the hearts and minds will follow." We know
how that worked out.
Similar threads
