Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Several questions, Is progressive intervention real?

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU
 
HereSince1628 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-12-04 04:15 PM
Original message
Several questions, Is progressive intervention real?
Is progressive intervention just a variation on American military hegemony?

Where can I find something from a _credible_ source that provides enough information for me to sort through the candidates' literature to see if any of them hold to this idea (an idea that might not be something real)?

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
AP Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-12-04 04:16 PM
Response to Original message
1. If you want to read a good book on liberal internationalism, read...
...The End of the American Era.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
lcordero Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-12-04 04:19 PM
Response to Original message
2. No, it's not real
"Progressive intervention" is just another way of saying that we are "officially" invading a country for human rights violations with the real reason being that we are invading to either steal natural resources or to set up a base in a place of some tactical significance.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
AP Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-12-04 04:35 PM
Response to Reply #2
8. Japon had a fascist dictator who was killing Chinese people by the ...
...thousands, and Htiler was doing the same thing in Europe.

You can't sit on the sidelines and let that kind of evil succeed if you believe in democracy and hate fascism.

Fascism is something worth fighting against.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ma4t Donating Member (183 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-12-04 04:48 PM
Response to Reply #8
11. Be careful, with that logic ......
you'll be thinking that we should intervene in North Korea, or that we should have intervened in Rwanda, or even that deposing Saddam was a good thing.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
AP Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-12-04 06:23 PM
Response to Reply #11
18. Rwanda - yes. The west created that mess, intentionally.
We had a moral obligation to stop it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
IrateCitizen Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-12-04 04:53 PM
Response to Reply #8
13. Let's look at that a little closer, shall we AP?
I love it when the examples of WWII are brought out of the woodwork, because most people don't realize the lengths to which many people went to not only placate, but openly admire Hitler in the years leading up to WWII. And they did so in full knowledge of the kind of "law and order" that was taking place over there.

Then, of course, there was the holocaust. Thing is, prior to WWII, Hitler put a bunch of Jewish people on a boat and sent it out to find a home for them other than Germany. At every single port -- including the US -- that boat was turned away. While this was hardly an endorsement of the holocaust, I think it highlights how concerned our government was for the plight of the Jewish people.

Furthermore, there were a great number of people who fought in WWII -- the first "total war" that affected civilians more than armies in our history -- came to the conclusion of "never again" after it was over. Even with the horrors of fascism, they didn't believe that the millions of lives lost in the end were truly worth it. Three prime examples of this mindset are Howard Zinn, Phil Berrigan and Kurt Vonnegut. I believe that Joseph Heller shared similar sentiments as well. Berrigan remarked on his service as an infantry lieutenant on the front lines in Europe, "My government taught me how to be an effective killing machine."

With regards to the campaign against Japan, it was not really a war against fascism as much as it was the last true war between colonial powers. While this doesn't excuse the brutality exercised by Japan over its colonial subjects (it was absolutely horrible), it is really the only way to keep this in context. We were not overly concerned with Japan until 1941 -- and their takeover of Manchuko (Manchuria) took place in the mid-1930's.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
AP Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-12-04 06:25 PM
Response to Reply #13
19. Not commenting on HOW those wars were fought. I was just saying that you
can't sit by and watch fascism spread.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
IrateCitizen Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Feb-13-04 01:57 PM
Response to Reply #19
24. I wasn't commenting on HOW, I was commenting on WHY
And truth be told, neither of those instances had anywhere close to as much to do with fighting fascism as they did with stopping an infringement on the ruling order.

The ruling order of the day being, of course, the British Empire, the French and the emerging American Empire "of sorts"....

I'm not saying that the defeat of fascism WASN'T a good thing. I'm just saying that the reason that WWII took place was largely outside the realm of strictly "fighting fascism".

That's a WHY the war happened, not a HOW.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
kenny blankenship Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-12-04 06:01 PM
Response to Reply #8
17. we didn't actually DO progressive intervention there
they attacked us remember?

And like Irate Citizen said, Hitler had many admirers and supporters in the 30s in America. As the decade drew to a close and the war approached the United States War Dept. had a hell of a time getting American corporations like Standard Oil of NY/NJ to stop doing business and transferring technology to the Nazi government. Starting in 1939 Hitler attacked a succession of countries leading up to Britain which was surely was going to bring us in. Britain depended on a great deal of shipping from us and Hitler's Navy attacked that shipping crossing the Atlantic. Letting Britain be conquered was not acceptable and yet there was tremendous resistance to coming to her aid until I suppose the last possible instant. Due to the success of the Kriegsmarine in reducing Britain's merchant fleet, eventually US vessels would have to bring the material to Britain and that would mean the German navy would be killing American merchant marine sailors and destroying American ships. It was inevitable that we would become involved. Yet we stayed out for 2 years after Britain and Germany first declared war upon each other and a year after Germany started to attack Britain directly. Pearl Harbor was just the last straw.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
AP Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-12-04 06:27 PM
Response to Reply #17
21. You just explained why it was important to stop Hitler. The more success
he had, the stronger the pull towards fascism would have been at home.

W's grandfather was looking to bring fascism to the US.

FDR was fighting fascism at home as much as he was fighting it abroad.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
lcordero Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-12-04 07:11 PM
Response to Reply #8
23. Let's go through this
Islam Karimov
Robert Mugabe
The House of Saud

The list goes on and on and on. I do not want to spend my life fighting against bogeymen and I do not deem it worthy of having my life wasted or the lives of my cousins wasted because some asshole on Wall Street wants to make a dollar.

History is nothing more than the account of the winner of a conflict.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ShimokitaJer Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-12-04 04:20 PM
Response to Original message
3. Check out this article
http://www.pressaction.com/pablog/archives/001294.html

Basically, it links the New Democrats and the Progressive Policy Institute to the same type of interventionist (possibly military) politics praised by the PNAC... and links it all to Kerry.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ShimokitaJer Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-12-04 04:23 PM
Response to Reply #3
4. And here's the PPI's self-definition for the term
http://www.ppionline.org/ppi_ci.cfm?contentid=252144&subsecid=900020&knlgAreaID=450004

Here's the money quote:

"We begin by reaffirming the Democratic Party's commitment to progressive internationalism -- the belief that America can best defend itself by building a world safe for individual liberty and democracy. We therefore support the bold exercise of American power, not to dominate but to shape alliances and international institutions that share a common commitment to liberal values. The way to keep America safe and strong is not to impose our will on others or pursue a narrow, selfish nationalism that betrays our best values, but to lead the world toward political and economic freedom. "

Lots of euphemisms in there, but I'll let you sort 'em out.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ShimokitaJer Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-12-04 04:33 PM
Response to Reply #4
7. Now that I look at it again...
there are some really scary quotes on that site:

"While some complain that the Bush administration has been too radical in recasting America's national security strategy, we believe it has not been ambitious or imaginative enough. We need to do more, and do it smarter and better to protect our people and help shape a safer, freer world.

Progressive internationalism occupies the vital center between the neo-imperial right and the non-interventionist left, between a view that assumes that our might always makes us right and one that assumes that because America is strong it must be wrong.

Too many on the left seem incapable of taking America's side in international disputes, reflexively oppose the use of force, and begrudge the resources required to keep our military strong. Viewing multilateralism as an end in itself, they lose sight of goals, such as fighting terrorism or ending gross human rights abuses, which sometimes require us to act -- if need be outside a sometimes ineffectual United Nations. And too many adopt an anti-globalization posture that would not only erode our own prosperity but also consign billions of the world's neediest people to grinding poverty. However troubling the Bush record, the pacifist and protectionist left offers no credible alternative. "

And these guys are supposed to be Democrats?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
IrateCitizen Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-12-04 04:45 PM
Response to Reply #7
9. How do you defeat PNAC? By "out-PNACing" them, of course!
Too many on the left seem incapable of taking America's side in international disputes, reflexively oppose the use of force, and begrudge the resources required to keep our military strong. Viewing multilateralism as an end in itself, they lose sight of goals, such as fighting terrorism or ending gross human rights abuses, which sometimes require us to act -- if need be outside a sometimes ineffectual United Nations. And too many adopt an anti-globalization posture that would not only erode our own prosperity but also consign billions of the world's neediest people to grinding poverty. However troubling the Bush record, the pacifist and protectionist left offers no credible alternative.

This is all just so patently tired and stale that I really don't even know where to begin to address it. These guys try to make themselves out to be thinkers "outside the box", when in fact, foreign-policy wise they're doing nothing more than rehashing the arguments of Democratic hawks like Scoop Jackson during the Cold War.

The problem is, we're no longer in the Cold War. I guess somebody forgot to tell PPI. :shrug:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ShimokitaJer Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-12-04 04:51 PM
Response to Reply #9
12. The scariest thing is...
the New Democratic Caucus makes up a solid majority of the Senate and House, including Kerry, Edwards, Gephardt, and Lieberman. The only way we can avoid supporting this kind of insanity is with Dean and Kucinich.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DuctapeFatwa Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-12-04 04:30 PM
Response to Original message
5. It sounds a lot better, and that's the important thing

The only people who will not appreciate the difference are the families of the crusade victims.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
redqueen Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-12-04 04:32 PM
Response to Reply #5
6. bull$hit

and you know it
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DuctapeFatwa Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-12-04 04:45 PM
Response to Reply #6
10. I guess you mean the anti-American terrorists who refer to US properties

around the globe as "other countries?"

Don't worry, the regime has us all on the run, smoking us out of our holes.



Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
redqueen Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-12-04 05:05 PM
Response to Reply #10
14. lol
Yeah, them. :)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bigtree Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-12-04 05:05 PM
Response to Original message
15. Kerry signed the manifesto, "A New Agenda for the New Decade":
Edited on Thu Feb-12-04 05:26 PM by bigtree
http://www.issues2002.org/International/John_Kerry_Foreign_Policy.htm

Kerry signed the DLC manifesto, "A New Agenda for the New Decade":

Build a Public Consensus Supporting US Global Leadership

The internationalist outlook that served America and the world so well during the second half of the 20th century is under attack from both ends of the political spectrum. As the left has gravitated toward protectionism, many on the right have reverted to “America First” isolationism.

Our leaders should articulate a progressive internationalism based on the new realities of the Information Age: globalization, democracy, American pre-eminence, and the rise of a new array of threats ranging from regional and ethnic conflicts to the spread of missiles and biological, chemical, and nuclear weapons. This approach recognizes the need to revamp, while continuing to rely on, multilateral alliances that advance U.S. values and interests.

A strong, technologically superior defense is the foundation for US global leadership. Yet the US continues to employ defense strategies, military missions, and force structures left over from the Cold War, creating a defense establishment that is ill-prepared to meet new threats to our security. The US must speed up the “revolution in military affairs” that uses our technological advantage to project force in many different contingencies involving uncertain and rapidly changing security threats -- including terrorism and information warfare.

Goals for 2010
A clear national policy with bipartisan support that continues US global leadership, adjusts our alliances to new regional threats to peace and security, promotes the spread of political and economic freedom, and outlines where and how we are willing to use force.
A modernized military equipped to deal with emerging threats to security, such as terrorism, information warfare, weapons of mass destruction, and destabilizing regional conflicts.
Source: The Hyde Park Declaration 00-DLC12 on Aug 1, 2000


____________________________________________________________________


"Progressive Internationalism" proposes a six-step national security agenda for the Democratic Party and for the United States:
http://www.ndol.org/ndol_ci.cfm?contentid=252147&kaid=131&subid=207

Advance democracy abroad to make us safer at home: Arguing that America's power should serve our democratic ideals, the authors call for a new push for political and economic reforms in the greater Middle East, which has emerged as the world's most unstable and dangerous region. Their strategy for encouraging forces of reform and modernization in the region includes a new Middle East Trade Initiative to spur growth and development, new aid for governments that embrace openness and accountability, and a crash program to reduce America's dependence on oil.

Prevent terrorists and dangerous regimes from acquiring weapons of mass destruction: If during the Cold War we faced an arms race to build weapons, we are now in a race to keep them out of the wrong hands. Democrats would pursue a collective approach in dealing with the dangerous situation in North Korea by engaging the United Nations and North Korea's neighbors; and would focus on preventing the acquisition of weapons of mass destruction (WMD) through expansion of the successful Nunn-Lugar program, rather than relying on military preemption of the use of WMD.

Plug gaps in homeland defense: Democrats would bring an overdue sense of urgency to defending our homeland by creating America's first-ever domestic intelligence organization; offering state and local leaders useful guidance based on genuine threat assessment; merging terrorist watch lists and ensuring information sharing among law enforcement agencies; and by investing in resources to equip police, fire fighters and public health officials with the tools needed to protect their communities.

Transform the U.S. military and use it more effectively: Democrats would make room for investments to modernize and sustain America's military superiority into the future by dismantling obsolete Cold War infrastructure, working toward assuring the "information dominance" clearly necessary in dealing with today's threats, and making smarter use of American military power. They would also press for an expanded NATO peacekeeping mission in Afghanistan, and maintain a robust military presence in Iraq until security and stability have been achieved.

Reinvigorate America's strategic alliances: Democratic presidents have made America's strategic alliances a cornerstone of their foreign policy. Democrats still believe that our alliances are as important as ever. They intend not to abandon them, but to reorient them to new challenges by strengthening and reforming international institutions such as NATO, the United Nations, the international financial institutions, and the World Trade Organization.

Restore American global economic leadership: Democrats would revive U.S. leadership in the global economy by restoring the dynamism of the American economy through a rejection of the Bush administration's policies of fiscal recklessness; offering a fundamentally new approach to trade and economic relations with the Muslim world; renewing and expanding trade agreements and negotiations; and encouraging reform of multilateral lending institutions to tackle corruption and poverty more vigorously.

_____________________________________________________________________


I have provided these in an effort to contribute to the debate on progressive internationalism. I am not open to broad claims of Kerry's intent as it relates to this document. I do feel that we can interpret his views on these issues in the context of his actual statements and actions. In that regard I don't think we can tie him to every word in the DLC manifesto. I fully expect John Kerry to form and promote his personal philosophy on these issues if he reaches a position of ultimate influence.

John Kerry Issues Page: Foreign Policy
http://www.johnkerry.com/issues/foreignpolicy

John Kerry on Foreign Policy:
http://www.issues2002.org/International/John_Kerry_Foreign_Policy.htm

Text of John Kerry Speech at GU on Foreign Policy
http://www.themoderntribune.com/john_kerry_-_presidential_candidate_-_john_kerry_on_foreign_policy.htm

John Kerry on VoteMatch
Supports multilateral cooperative internationalism; Progressive Internationalism
http://issues2002.org/John_Kerry_VoteMatch.htm
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
HereSince1628 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-12-04 05:31 PM
Response to Original message
16. Thanks all, I've got plenty to read now, I am very anti-PNAC
a conversation I had with a neighbor suggested that the democrats have their own version of a world that involves American hegemony.

I can honestly say, that I'd be ABB with one caveat--I can't support a policy of American military hegemony. If progressive interventionism is another name for that I am using my vote for someone who really cares about the daily lives of American people.

Our nation's ability to deal with social problems is severely handicapped by the money we dedicate to maintaining military supremacy. Increasing infant mortality rates are _not_ economcially offset nor ethically offset by corporate profits in the international energy game.

If we envision Europe (with Russia) as "the enemy" we can still cut the military budget in half and have greater spending.

True funding of homeland security and universal education and healthcare are impossible under military expenditures of the last decade.



Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
HFishbine Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-12-04 06:33 PM
Response to Reply #16
22. Do "democrats" have their own version of American hegemony?
Yes.

It was through the Progressive Policy Institute that the doctrine of Progressive Internationalism was borne.

We also backed the goal of ousting Saddam Hussein's malignant regime in Iraq, because the previous policy of containment was failing, because Saddam posed a grave danger to America as well as his own brutalized people, and because his blatant defiance of more than a decade's worth of United Nations Security Council resolutions was undermining both collective security and international law.

much more: http://www.ppionline.org/documents/Progressive_Internationalism_1003.pdf
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
stickdog Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-12-04 06:26 PM
Response to Original message
20. Nothing is real unless the corporate media deems it so.
Is that what you meant by "a_credible_source"?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Wed Apr 24th 2024, 05:43 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC