Why do conservatives hate the UN?

[Reader Rabbit]

I've gotten involved in an argument on a Star Trek board about the United Nations, and the level of animosity toward the organization is frightening. They deem any and all peacekeeping forces incompetent, they believe the UN's main motive is to soak money from the U.S., and they think the whole institution should be disbanded. In the interests of IDIC, I have attempted rational discussion, providing examples, articles, etc., but in true America-firster fashion, they refuse to give credence to anything that does not already support their existing prejudices.

What is it that the conservatives hate so much? (And for that matter, why have so many Trekkies become Kool-Aid drinking neocons?) Anyone have any answers?

[waiting for hope]

1. That's a bit odd -

"why have so many Trekkies become Kool-Aid drinking neocons?" Wouldn't the Federation of Planets represent something similar to the United Nations? OK, I'm a trekkie and at the moment, I don't really have an opinion of the UN.

[Kolesar]

2. The UN General Assembly has passed hundreds of resolutions against Israel

I don't know the depth of the resolutions, but that could be part of it.

[goclark]

3. "their existing prejudices" Bingo!

They don't want to have people of other colors telling them what to do.

[Czolgosz]

4. Conservatives DON'T hate the UN. Right-wing nutjobs hate the UN. There is a difference.

[rusty charly]

5. The US Owes the UN, Not Vice Versa

(The following letter-to-the-editor appeared in The Washington Times on October 19, 1998. It was written by Jeffrey Laurenti, UNA-USA's Executive Director for Policy Studies, in rebuttal to an earlier letter from a writer arguing that the United Nations owes money to the United States.)

http://www.unausa.org/site/pp.asp?c=fvKRI8MPJpF&b=475727

"In the Oct. 13 letter 'The United Nations owes money to the United States,' the writer insists that the US government, a majority of Congress and every other nation in the world have 'falsely claimed that the United States owes a 'debt' to the United Nations.' The writer denies that a country has any obligation to pay dues.

In fact, 35 years ago the United States eloquently and successfully argued to both the International Court of Justice and the UNGeneral Assembly that UN dues are legally binding financial obligations in international law. The United States is now delinquent $1.6 billion in UN dues. These arrears accumulated during several years of non-payment for peacekeeping and regular budgets for which America had voted.

Dodging the question of treaty obligations, the letter writer cites a recent survey that Wirthlin Worldwide did for the United Nations Association of the USA. The survey asked about this line of thinking: 'If you add in the cost of troops and services the United States has on its own provided to help peacekeeping missions, the UN should actually owe us money.' Just under half (45 percent) said they would find this a very convincing argument for not paying UN dues.

But that argument depends on a big 'if.' It is if you 'add in' activities that were never authorized, budgeted or administered by the United Nations. Isolationists pretend the United Nations should 'owe' money for American troops or fighter planes or an offshore fleet over which the United Nations had no control. These are costs that its members never voted to accept. Just because your friend goes off and runs up charges on his credit card with you in mind doesn't mean you are responsible for his credit card bill.

So with this argument based on a premise so demonstrably false, what argument is left to the anti-UN fringe? By large pluralities, Americans surveyed dismissed every other argument of UN opponents as totally unconvincing. Every argument for paying dues they found 'very convincing.' UNA-USA's Web site has the details (visit pubopres.asp). Even after hearing all the opponents' arguments, 75 percent of Americans said unequivocally that they wanted the United States to pay its dues. Many of these said the issue could affect their votes for Congress.

If UN phobes want to make UN funding an issue in competitive congressional races this fall, let them. It will make our day."

[BattyDem]

6. I find it very odd that Star Trek fans would hate the UN because ...

the United Federation of Planets is basically an intergalactic UN. Being against the UN is like being against the very foundation of Star Trek itself! :crazy:

I think neocons like to be in control and an organization like the UN is about compromise and understanding, not control and domination. They see compromise as weakness and they think they'll lose their own values and culture if they accept another culture or belief system as being equal.

edited: typo :blush:

[Radical Activist]

7. They think any world government should be based on corporate rule

like the WTO. Maybe you should ask them why they don't hate the WTO, which is the only world government with the ability to strike down US laws.
They're being manipulated by the war profiteers and international corporations that fund the right-wing propaganda machine. The UN doesn't fit in with the corporate war profiteer agenda since it is based on the ideals of peace and cooperation.

[louis-t]

18. Nail, meet head.

You are exactly right.

[MonkeyFunk]

8. Because many

conservatives - at least the right-wing nutjobs, are at their core, ultra-nationalists, and they resent anything that forces the US to "play nice" in the world.

[back2basics909]

9. Depends..

.. the more hardcore types beleive it's an attempt at a new world order. That the UN is an attempt to take away powers from Nations and give them to the UN, who will one day rule the World.

Then on the other hand they say they acomplish nothing, have no function and are powerless. No really seeing the contradiction.

"Paleoconservative Patrick J. Buchanan asserts the Council on Foreign Relations (itself supposedly a front for the "international bankers", as well as, it is claimed, the inspiration for the founding of the Bilderberg Group, Trilateral Commission, and World Trade Organization) is behind the conspiracy. He claims that the liberals are planning to eventually subvert the independence of the United States of America by subordinating national sovereignty to the United Nations<11> <18>. This thesis agrees with the right-wing libertarian opinion<19> who sees a future socialist World State as the only way to achieve an orwellian collectivist oligarchy freed from the need to subordinate the world's production to the consumers of a free market economy. The conspiracy would consist into replacing it with a monopolist planned economy capable of rationing the resources, converting populations into public property<20>. Their usual image is an egalitarian slavery under a global scientific dictatorship. "
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_World_Order_(conspiracy)

[Dulcinea]

10. To quote a conservative I know:

"I don't like these world government organizations....they just want to take from the 'haves' and give to the 'have-nots'."

It's about what they perceive to be theirs, & they want no part of giving it up. Some people define themselves by what they own rather than what they do.

(edited for typos)

[etherealtruth]

25. That's what I've heard from many conservatives as well

Though, I must admit they were not Star Trek fans.

[Mechatanketra]

11. Because it didn't turn out to be the U(SA's)N.

To the extent that any wingnut supports an international organization, it's when they can envision it (ironically) as Trek's federation (as it was actually portrayed most of the time, not necessarily as it was intended to be), or even more aptly the "Earthians" of Futurama: a world government formed by successful kulturkampf absorption of all potential citizens into more of "us".

It's interlaced with the conservative idea of "compromise" (seen so frequently in Bush's proclamations of his ostensible bipartisan spirit): "You agree that I'm 100% right and I'll agree not to hold it against you that you were wrong. (Much.)" We love the idea of sitting down at a diplomatic table and "reasoning out our differences" ... until it occurs to us that the folks on the other side might have their own goals, and be expecting us to give them something in return.

In shortened summary, cons don't like the UN because it didn't turn out to be an instrument of hegemony, which is the only practical purpose they could ever see for an organization like the UN.

[JackRiddler]

32. How ironic...

Since the UN has often turned out to be an instrument of hegemony - a cover for US and Western imperial politics. See "Security Council," especially:

- which resolutions are enforced (Korea in 1950, Iraq in 1990)
- which are ignored or vetoed (anything to do with Israel, for example) and
- which are abused as pretexts and legitimations for the bombing of countries like Yugoslavia, Iraq and Somalia (1990s, 2000s).

Sometimes I can't believe what a bizarro land the cons live in. They don't recognize the international institutions of the imperial hegemony they support. They ruin alliances, strip away multilateralist justifications as too soft-headed, end up in idiotic adventures like Iraq, and accelerate the isolation and ultimately fall of US military might. "I don't want to rule the planet unless I can do it by force!"

I guess what they really find so objectionable in the UN is that the planet is mostly brown, yellow and black.

[magellan]

12. Any Star Trek fan who hates the UN

...has not understood Star Trek and can't really be called a fan.

The problem with the UN is the Security Council permanent members who wield veto power with bad politics in mind, particularly the US and, previously, Russia (as the USSR).

[Reader Rabbit]

17. That's my perspective, as well...

But you know IDIC, and all that! ;)

I'm glad that so many people have responded to this thread. I love Trek, and for the past few years, I've noticed that more and more Trekkers seem to be extremely conservative supporters of Bush and his agenda. It boggles the mind. The few times I've pointed out the discrepancy between the values of the various Trek series and their own personal beliefs, the response is usually something to the effect that Star Trek is fictional, so of course it's tenets do not apply to "real world" situations.

It's enough to make one start looking around for a goateed Spock! Oy.

[magellan]

22. It's good to meet you, Reader Rabbit

And I find it puzzling too. The only thing I can think is that the mercifully short-lived "Enterprise" brought a whole new band of people into the Trek universe by pandering to decidedly un-Trek values. I remember I finally stopped watching when they aired the ep where Cap'n whatsisface tortured an alien for information by throwing him in an air lock. Not that there wasn't already much wrong with the series. It was like "Neocon Trek" or yes, "Mirror, Mirror Trek".

Are you sure you aren't dealing with juveniles who think "Enterprise" epitomizes Star Trek?

[Reader Rabbit]

23. Um....

...I liked Enterprise. Does that make me a bad person? :evilfrown:

That being said, some of the people I've argued with came into Trek via Enterprise, but many of them started as fans of TOS. I had actually given up on Trek when Voyager became the 7 of 9 show; Enterprise got me back into it again. And there are many Enterprise fans who are also liberal, so there doesn't seem to be any rhyme or reason to the recent neoconning of Trek.

But it is sad. :(

[magellan]

28. Not at all

I don't think anyone's "bad" for liking Enterprise. That series just struck a nerve with me for several reasons, one being that young people who came to Trek through it seemed very different from those who had been fans of the earlier series first. Disturbingly, many of the new fans seemed drawn to Enterprise mostly for its parallels with wrongheaded post-9/11 militancy and nationalism. I blame B&B for that -- they twisted Roddenberry's concept into something I (and many other older fans) didn't recognize, for ratings.

I revert to my original assertion: Trek fans who hate the UN don't understand Trek. Or they believe neocon lies about the UN, which doesn't make them very clever either. :)

[Reader Rabbit]

30. Word

I blame B&B for that -- they twisted Roddenberry's concept into something I (and many other older fans) didn't recognize, for ratings.

Yup. These two bozos only intended to plug in stereotypes and stock characters into the formula that had made them money in the past. The actors, however, didn't get the memo that it was just supposed to be generic pap, and they created characters that I really grew to love. The majority of the plots were mediocre, but a talented bunch of actors really drew me (and others) in.

It's a brutal "what if" scenario, to imagine the series as it might have been with someone with vision and passion and direction in charge, a la Joss Whedon with Firefly.

For what it's worth, the Season 4 Vulcan arc had a bunch of paranoid—and overly emotional—Vulcans attempting to launch a pre-emptive strike against Andoria, in what seemed like an obvious jab at the Bush Administration. For that matter, the Xindi in Season 3 made a "with us or against us" illogical argument that was certainly a potshot. I don't think the creators were exactly mindless miltarists, but they certainly created scenarios where people could interpret it as such.

Well, as they said in Holes, "If only, if only...."

:(

[magellan]

31. I really, REALLY tried to like Enterprise

I remembered how I felt when TNG started; the first season was a complete rip-off of TOS episodes. A dubious start to be sure. But it grew on me until it became my favorite ST series, right up there next to TOS. So I forced myself to watch Enterprise.

Three seasons later and I still hadn't warmed to either the plot or the characters (despite knowing/liking Scott Bakula from his Quantum Leap days). The night I fell asleep during an ep -- and I wasn't even tired! lol -- that was it. Sounds as if I was right to give it up when I did. I've screamed at my tv enough over the reality of the last six years, I'll be damned if I'll do it with my sci-fi.

It's a crying shame it had to end on the note B&B delivered. But you know the ST franchise: it never dies, it just reinvents itself. And Roddenberry's message is only more relevant these days. Give it several years, betcha it'll be back with renewed vigor and passionate voices. I often wonder if Roddenberry's son ever has thoughts of taking up the mantle....

[devilgrrl]

13. The same reason they hate humanity....

because it's there.

[no_hypocrisy]

14. Because it's an institution that they can't control and use to

manipulate to control people and to covert more private, personal wealth. On the contrary, the UN gets in the way of world domination with its penchant for negotiation and influence to stop wars before they begin.

[treestar]

15. Right wingers hate diplomacy

They want to be an elite, Americans, who rule the world. The U.N. gives them the idea non-Americans might count, or have a say.

[The Straight Story]

16. as an x conservative and close friend of militia members here is how I see it

The UN is seen as a threat to our personal freedoms and way of life in the US - and a doorway to a one world government where what is good for Sweden (as an example) may not be good for the US but tough luck.

The FEAR is that we will lose rights and our national identity and the congress and president, along with the supreme court, will have less and less power as we give more power over to people of other countries via the UN.

It is akin to erasing the idea of States and implementing one huge state where those in power (the repugs right now) can control things down to a municipal level - so instead of local and state government and having things vary from place to place all is the same.

People fear a one world religion ruling things - and some people fear a one world government controlling things for the same reason. Too much power in the hands of too few erodes freedoms and local diversity.

[RB TexLa]

19. If they hate it because many times it's inefficient, then I agree with them

not in hatred, but in wanting it to work better. We pay the most money into the UN and should stand up when there is corruption, inefficiency and push for the money to be used better.

There are some on the right who feel it should have never been created and takes sovereignty away from the US, and other countries I suppose.

If they want it to work better and more responsible, everyone should want that. If it's due to a belief in isolationism then I and many on the left and right will just laugh at them waiting to see the "blue helmeted thugs who are going to come to take our Bibles and guns."

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

20. Patriotism - aka: nationalism.

"Patriotism is the most foolish of passions and the passion of fools." Schopenhauer

[BlooInBloo]

21. Because institutions like the UN lead to accountability that isn't within their control...

... to corrupt.

[pampango]

24. If you substituted the WTO for the UN in the OP, you could make

almost exactly the same statement about liberals.

"I've gotten involved in an argument on a Star Trek board about the and the level of animosity toward the organization is frightening. (T)hey believe the 's main motive is to soak money from U.S. , and they think the whole institution should be disbanded. In the interests of IDIC, I have attempted rational discussion, providing examples, articles, etc., but in true America-firster fashion, they refuse to give credence to anything that does not already support their existing prejudices.

What is it that the hate so much? (And for that matter, why have so many Trekkies become Kool-Aid drinking neo?) Anyone have any answers?"

Of course, the UN and WTO have different purposes and share problems in how power is wielded within each organization. Both though are attempts to sublimate national sovereignty to international cooperation.

[AspenRose]

26. I found this interesting tidbit in the Fascism thread on GD

"2. Fascism cannot tolerate such religious and ethical concepts as the "brotherhood of man." Fascists deny the need for international cooperation. These ideas contradict the fascist theory of the "master race." The brotherhood of man implies that all people--regardless of color, race, creed, or nationality--have rights. International cooperation, as expressed the Dumbarton Oaks proposals, runs counter to the fascist program of war and world domination...Right now our native fascists are spreading anti-British, anti-Soviet, anti-French, and **anti-United Nations propaganda....**" (emphasis added)


That was written in the 40s.

Here's the thread:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x242627

[Vidar]

27. Too many people to bribe.

[Catherine Vincent]

29. Because a black man was in charge?

:shrug: