Saturday, November 5, 2005

The historical failure of Internationalism and Liberal ideas

The real world is not a simpleton ideal as espoused by today’s liberals.

by StFerdIII

Modern liberals are historically ignorant. By ‘modern liberal’ I mean the left wing of the political spectrum – the statists, socialists, Marxists and those opposed to the classical orthodox liberalism stemming from the Enlightenment. Modern liberals are the successors to failed Marxian, fascist, statist, and other utopian ideas. They naturally find common cause with Islam. The liberal-socialist view of the world is peculiarly hypocritical. Liberal-socialists [LS] want you to believe that they are tolerant; international; moral; cosmopolitan; concerned for peace; anxious about the poor; and commiserating with the less fortunate. In actual fact all LS policies promote the opposite. LS factions, as history would inform us of such people and groups, are a danger to a civilized society and international peace.

LS ideals in international politics are particularly bothersome and dangerous. LS internationalism dates from the 17th century when international cooperation, laws, treaties and even parliaments were offered as ideas to stop Europe’s plague of horrible wars. Internationalism in this context was premised on however the increased linkages in trade, culture, understanding and political negotiation. Such ideals allowed statesmen to use both soft and hard power to defuse disputes and disavow violent action. Originally and importantly internationalism would never triumph over the rights of nation states.

Orthodox liberals were on to a good thing – increase commerce, educational and political exchanges, and open up the borders, and the ugliness of racist nationalism could be remodeled and reformed. But the opposite occurred. As the power of the state increased and the control by the state over media, education and socializing processes continued apace, the increased in political economic and labor exchange did nothing to halt the rise of illiberal and anti-civilizaitonal ideologies and states. Fascism, communism and dictatorship all flourished post World War One – the supposed high tide of international awareness. President Wilson’s post World War One 14 points to establish the new international order and his creation of the ‘League of Nations’ did not prevent the rise of militaristic fascism in Germany, Japan, Russia and elsewhere.

Internationalism in its classic context has some utility. There is an argument – though it is riddled with exceptions – that democracies don’t make war on each other. This is historically incorrect. Various wars in 19th century Europe were between limited democracies, the British warred on the Boers, the Americans invaded Canada, and the nominal democracies of Britain Germany and France went to war in 1914. However we can see that in today’s world a democracy is not naturally warlike – witness the wanton destruction of the armed forces of Canada or the opposition to the current war in the UK or USA. So as democracy spreads there should be a political force for peace embedded in the democratic politics of each nation state – in which most citizens want to truck, barter, trade and just get on with life.

This leads me to the classic fallacy of internationalism – especially as it was practiced by Wilson and is forwarded by today’s Liberal-socialist jet set. The LS concept of internationalism or international liberalism is wrong because democracy – as a word and as a practice – means nothing. You can have a democracy but not freedom. Hitler and Stalin both proclaimed their fascist states as being more democratic than the West. In essence this was true – only because Germans and Soviets voted more often than citizens in the West. But what they lacked was the rule of law, property rights, division of powers, checks and balances, and freedom from arbitrary authority. These orthodox liberal ideals are the essence of a free society. So the Germans and Soviets while nominally democratic were slaves to the state.

One can view the same LS nonsense regarding Islam and despotic regimes around the world. It is clear that the UN and other liberal agencies are not only corrupt but actually prevent the spread of liberal institutions that will give relief to oppressed peoples around the world. Current LS internationalism is not premised on the establishment of real institutional change and societal change in the fascist lands of Greater Arabia or the despotic sink holes of Africa, or Asia. Much like Wilsonianism the current crop of tax payer funded LS internationalists feel that rhetoric, sympathy, more money, debt forgiveness and platitudes are enough to solve the problems of corruption, tyranny, murder and terror.

LS internationalism is thus a massive failure. Much like the League of Nations and the hundreds of other post Enlightenment attempts at usurping nation state rights, the current attempts at establishing a liberal United Nations World Government will and must fail. Nation states are the only relevant actors in the world polity today. International groups and contracts can play a compelling supporting role in the resolution of international difficulties. The WTO, aid programs, multi-lateral relief efforts and treaties, and dialogue are counterparts not the over-lords of the modern nation state. As the old saying of Teddy Roosevelt goes, ‘walk softly but carry a big stick’. Only nation states have the big sticks.

Europe, Canada and the UNO supporters should well take note that their policies, far from aiding international development, have hindered it. Establishing ever more bureaucracies, politicians and media poseurs, has nothing in common with realism. In fact the liberal-socialist obsession with utopia is not only unrealistic but murderously dangerous. It is time we dispense with fantasy ideals and use realism to reform states, and protect our civilization.