Kate and I mostly spent our time at the RNC seeking out energy/environment-related events, but I wanted to go to at least a few on other subjects, just to see if our issues popped up anywhere outside their normal silo. In that spirit, on Wed. afternoon I attended a panel discussion called "Building a Better, Safer World: What Would a McCain Presidency Do?" The panelists: Sen. Joe Lieberman (I-Conn.), McCain adviser (and lobbyist) Randy Scheunemann, Ambassador Richard Williamson, Ambassador (and trade lobbyist) Robert Portman, and Bud McFarlane, former National Security Advisor to President Reagan.
That's a pretty heavy-hitting line-up, one with a unique view inside the thinking of a conservative administration, which made the way it played out quite odd.
To hear Lieberman et al tell it, McCain is at heart a multilateralist and an alliance-builder. He's devoted to building schools and nurturing civil society groups. He's loath to use military force and keen to enhance public diplomacy. Why, he's a teddy bear! To boot, according to Lieberman, Iraq is a "model for the future of the Middle East," what with its incipient civil war emergence as a "self-governing, self-defending," independent country.
Aside from that surreality, three things most struck me:
1. There was no mention of climate change. Not one -- nothing about the refugees, the sea-level rise, the famines, nothing. That's apparently not part of making the world safe.
2. Despite the lack of overtly military talk, every policy or diplomatic maneuver discussed was ultimately about forcing other countries to do what the U.S. wants. I don't think it was conscious, it's just a mindset that is part and parcel of empire. At no point did any of the panelists even glancingly refer to the notion that the U.S. might compromise or give something up or simply refrain from meddling in exchange for better relationships or outcomes. Diplomacy, aid, sanctions ... ultimately they are all conceived as tools to get what we want -- weaker tools than the military, but ultimately the same sort of tool. Hegemony is not overtly defended, it's just the background assumption.
3. By far the most popular non-military tool was trade. Indeed, all involved seemed to conceive of "free trade" as having an almost magical ability to enrich everyone, bring about political freedom (China much?), and eliminate conflict. Now, I'm a fairly big believer in trade, but what these folks -- especially Portman -- are talking about is not open, fair trade with appropriate safeguards. Indeed, any talk of restrictions, modifications, or anything short of full-speed-ahead support for any trade agreement whatsoever was lamented as "anti-trade" (which apparently both Obama and Clinton are). Portman ceaselessly stumped for CAFTA and other recent trade agreements which basically consist in securing favorable deals for our biggest export corporations -- "free" trade only under a strained interpretation. This is boilerplate conservative stuff, but the lack of even a hint of reservations, especially after the evidence of NAFTA's effects, was striking.
That was about it. There was some brief talk about energy, focused on "foreign oil" and "next-generation ethanol," but the spin was mostly about, well, the trade advantages we could get by developing new fuels.
All in all it was pretty shallow stuff, a recitation of long-standing cliches. Afterward, Lieberman exclaimed about what a fantastically substantive discussion it was (given that he talked more than anyone else, it was a typically Liebermanian self-compliment). It made me think, not for the first time: Where are the real conservative policy wonks and intellectuals? I'm haunted by the thought that they're all meeting in a room somewhere in St. Paul and I don't know about it. I refuse to believe that it's sloganeering all the way down.
For McCain, it’s really all about the fake snow
City preps and countries posture ahead of Copenhagen talks
Comments
View as Flat
sindark Posted 4:08 am
05 Sep 2008
More:
http://www.sindark.com/2008/09/03/conservativism-and-scie ...
a sibilant intake of breath
Permalink
mreinbold Posted 5:17 am
05 Sep 2008
Permalink
Jon Rynn Posted 6:00 am
05 Sep 2008
Permalink
rwhiten1 Posted 12:57 pm
05 Sep 2008
regular exercise at the gym
Completely unrelated comment, but props to the use of the radiohead lyric. Apparently, that song (poem?) creeps alot of people out. I felt creeped out by the RNC, especially Giulliani. I find it odd that one of the tennents of the conservative movement is self-reliance, yet they mock those who are self-reliant when it suits them. Oh, and Giulliani destroyed the community gardens (which were the products of community organizing without any gov't involvement) so that his real estate developer buddies like Trump could build condos. What a complete dickhead that guy is.
Permalink
Pangolin Posted 3:18 pm
05 Sep 2008
It was liberals that had the imagination to look at a bunch of spare parts for the massive computers of the 70's and imagine the personal computers and the internet. Most of what you know as internet functions were imagined by liberal science fiction writers while you were still whining about the newspapers and radio giving Reagan a hard time. Assuming you weren't in underoos then.
A bunch of long-hairs turned burning man financiers in their old age.
So unplug this liberal tool and go away ya flat-earther you.
Put the Carbon Back
Permalink
Delay And Deny Posted 4:22 pm
05 Sep 2008
In England the tide has pretty much turned against Gorebots and the Global Warming sham. You guys better renew your passports because the only countries that still believe all these hoaxes are ... what ? Democratania?
Permalink
archigeek Posted 12:25 am
06 Sep 2008
The mellotron is your friend.
Permalink
mreinbold Posted 12:26 am
06 Sep 2008
Permalink
mreinbold Posted 12:28 am
06 Sep 2008
Permalink
mreinbold Posted 12:29 am
06 Sep 2008
Permalink
Biodiversivist Posted 3:04 am
06 Sep 2008
All forums have to protect themselves from internet trolls, which are a dime a dozen. Even you can understand that necessity. Separating your generic trolls from your generic contrarians can be tough sometimes, but at other times, it's obvious.
Your comments are stereotypical troll behavior by all definitions. You may have mistaken tolerance for indifference but unless your posts actually start to contribute to the various debates, your moniker will quietly disappear one day and we will all know what happened to it. It has happened before.
einbold is not here to debate, he is here to hate the liberal stereotype he carries around in his mind. The internet draws these personalities like a sponge. They are so common there are standard definitions for them. There is also a place for them:
http://www.theybannedme.com/
"...the largest assemblage of trolls, flamers, asshats and douche bags on the planet."
Wikipedia has an ongoiing problem with these personality types and works tirelessly to control it:
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/What_is_a_troll%3F
In the end, it all comes down to biodiversity. Poison Darts--Protecting the biodiversity of our world
Permalink
amazingdrx Posted 3:26 am
06 Sep 2008
And maybe even describe what you might prefer in terms of energy and environmental policy direction. Just a suggestion.
It's still a relatively free country and internet, but the patience of hard working serious writers who labor to present outstanding journalism here, could wear thin.
We simple commenters are not forced to match their standards (good thing for me), but at least we can try to be intelligible in presenting our points of view, no matter how ill-informed they maybe.
Take some pride in your dimbulb limboobery, "drug" Limbaugh does, doesn't he?
http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog John Schneider, Northern Wisconsin
Permalink
Delay And Deny Posted 5:29 am
06 Sep 2008
Not really. The Liberals were the planners at IBM who thought a single mainframe could satisfy the needs of the planet for the last half of the 20th century. The economic "Liberal Consensus" was the that new Industrial State (John Kenneth Galbraith) and it's centralized planning apparatus would be able to predict and serve all consumer needs.
Jobs was a proto-Conservative who felt that small business was better equipped to develop and promote the technology that the Big Giants (Xerox/Parc) would not.
In general, the real ground breakers of the Sixties were more like the Founding Fathers. They didn't want to pay a "tax" to the older generation. They wanted to make money based on the new technologies and new ideas. Rolling Stone Magazine, the Woodstock Concert, underground press, public tv -- these were all tunnels cut into the bedrock of the Establishment lock on technology and channels. The Beatles and Stones innovated business and record company finance while they recreated music.
Apple (the name Apple) was originally a company formed by the Beatles. And part of its mission was bleeding edge recording and music technology, not just signing artists. Read the Longest Cocktail Party sometime.
http://www.amazon.com/Longest-Cocktail-Party-Insiders-Mil ...
Permalink