As you probably already know, The New York Times has erected a significant barrier to the free flow of ideas on the Internet. It has some of the best op-ed writers in the country, but it won’t allow anyone to post their stuff or link to it on the Web. On the Times‘ own site, you have to pay a premium to read them.
So when I refer to Tom Friedman or David Brooks or one of those people, I can’t just link you straight to the entire piece I’m talking about.
But let me see if I can give you the gist of a Brooks piece I referred to in my column today, and stay within the "fair use" boundaries.
Here’s the excerpt, from a piece headlined, “The Human Community:”
Blair’s decision to support the invasion of Iraq grew out of the essence of who he is. Over the past decade, he has emerged as the world’s leading anti-Huntingtonian. He has become one pole in a big debate. On one side are those, represented by Samuel Huntington of Harvard, who believe humanity is riven by deep cultural divides and we should be careful about interfering in one another’s business. On the other are those like Blair, who believe the process of globalization compels us to be interdependent, and that the world will flourish only if the international community enforces shared, universal values….
As prime minister, he tried to remove the class and political barriers that divide the British people. Abroad, his core idea was also communitarian…
This meant moving away from the Westphalian system, in which the world and its problems were divided into nation-states….
In his 1999 speech, Blair maintained that the world sometimes has a duty to intervene in nations where global values are under threat. He argued forcefully for putting ground troops in Kosovo and highlighted the menace posed by Saddam Hussein.
If that’s not enough for you, here’s a PDF of the page of The State on which the column appeared.
Related Posts
In his 1999 speech, Blair maintained that the world sometimes has a duty to intervene in nations where global values are under threat. He argued forcefully for putting ground troops in Kosovo and highlighted the menace posed by Saddam Hussein.
We were successful in Kosovo WITHOUT ground troops and the so-called “menace” posed by SH has proven non-existent. So exactly what qualifies Blair as a competent leader?
Actually, bud, you’re just thinking of the initial bombardment that led the Serbs to give in back in the spring of 1999. Right after that, our ground troops went in, and have been there ever since.
It’s pretty much impossible to accomplish anything of that nature that is lasting and worthwhile without boots on the ground.
… and, if by “SH” you mean Samuel Huntington, you DID pick up on the fact that Tony Blair is an ANTI-Huntingtonian, not a Huntingtonian, right? It seemed that you were equating the two…
Brad,your comments about the NYT reminded me of a book you should put on your summer reading list-“END TIMES:DEATH OF THE FOURTH ESTATE”.
You mean it’s not dead yet?
You can frame Globalization in the most glowing language imaginable, but it still doesn’t change the reality. Globalization is criminal. Globalization steals the wealth created by the people and redistributes it a criminal minority. You, Brooks, Blair, and Friedman represent that criminal minority: it’s the way you stay in power-it’s that simple.
America didn’t become great based on the efforts of the founding fathers alone: often America made progress despite an obsolescent political economy that proved itself no longer viable by the early part of the last century.
American workers made America great. Western culture made America great. The New Deal made America great. The Bill of Rights made America great. Social Democracy is the rightful heir to Western Civilization, and it will ultimately triumph over legalized theft and usury.
Blair called for a “complete renaissance” on foreign policy to combat “Reactionary Islam” last August. I had commented on it on my blog at the time, noting that he connected the dots quite well. It’s still an interesting read.
Mark, I think you have it backwards. I wholeheartedly agree that “American workers made America great. Western culture made America great.” But it’s social democracy that borders on criminality. The goals sound lofty:
The problem is how this is accomplished: government action to take over or tightly regulate successful private enterprises and share the wealth. With such a high degree of control, the enterprises stagnate. Nationalized oil companies in Mexico and Venezuela are obvious examples: at first there’s plenty of money to pass around to the poor and afflicted, but not enough to maintain the infrastructure, so output declines. Moreover, I view taking over businesses as coercive, a decidedly unjust method.
Just think about what would have happened to the UK had Thatcher not privatized industries, taken on the miners’ union, and the like? As the Conservatives went insane, Blair arrived to shake some sense into the Labour Party, keep his hands off private industry, and enable modest growth.
I know you’ll want to highlight the Scandinavian countries as models of your dream. I don’t feel like arguing much today, so I’ll just leave you with this assessment of Nordic stagnation; these homogenized countries are the exceptions that prove the rule. Instead, look at Ireland, the wild west of capitalism thanks to the government’s strategy of minimal meddling and low tax rates.
I find managed trade — the opposite of Globalization — criminal. Why can’t folks purchase what they can afford from whatever source? Why limit their choices? Limiting choices unfairly benefits the domestic businesses you rail about. What kind of crap would we be driving if Toyota and Honda couldn’t sell their cars here? That competition is finally making Fords better again.
One component of proposed global warming measures is managed trade, limiting the importation of agricultural commodities based on the pollution their transportation requires. That’s cruel to kiwi growers and African farmers.
Ironically, free trade makes our environment here at home cleaner because the filthy manufacturing plants — and the hazardous chemicals they use — are overseas.
Finally, doesn’t free trade enable “freedom from discrimination and freedom from dependence on either the owners of the means of production or the holders of abusive political power”?