Bharat Rakshak

Globalization is an issue of palpable political importance. It has swayed economic policy, foreign policy and social policy within most countries. It is also an issue that does not fit neatly onto the political spectrum. People on both the right and left support and oppose globalization. Why is this? What affect has this had on the political right?

The “why” is a very simple answer. Most people don’t consider foreign policy (which is the main policy area directly affected by globalization when voting) as much as other areas of political policy. As James Carville said, “it’s the economy stupid”. Voters are much more concerned about economic issues that affect them now (such as taxes and social programs) than they are about super national trading organizations and foreign conflicts. This means that voters don’t organize their beliefs based off of foreign policy and their take on globalization. As a result, political parties are not organized off of foreign policy and thus opinions about globalization. This is exacerbated in the United States where there are only two political parties since it means that both parties will reach out to voters who support and oppose globalization.

So, if there is no definitive foreign policy of the right, then what are the various factions? The Republican Party (which has represented the “contemporary right”) has always had a “mixed bag” of opinions on globalization. The Old Right had isolationist tendencies that date back very far. Some in the Republican Party were very adamant on this issue. The “conservative wing” of the Republican Party represented this stance. Senator Robert A. Taft led the movement throughout the 1940’s and into the 1950’s. Taft was an isolationist who opposed entry into World War Two (except after Pearl Harbor), opposed NATO when it was created, and opposed the United Nations.

Taft was contrasted by the “moderate wing” of the Republican Party. The “moderate wing” included Governor Thomas Dewey and President Dwight Eisenhower. The “moderate wing” was primarily located in the eastern United States. To contrast this, the “conservative wing” was primarily located in the mid-west and southern United States. Dewey, Eisenhower, and their followers were more sympathetic to American intervention in World War Two, NATO, The Cold War and globalization. The 1952 Republican National Convention was really only about the foreign policy doctrines of Taft and Eisenhower. Both of them generally agreed on other issues (such as their gradual acceptance of the New Deal).

The division between the “conservative wing” and the “moderate wing” of the Republican Party would evolve over the following decades. The “conservative wing” morphed into the paleoconservatives. paleoconservatives are the modern successor of the Old Right. They are isolationist and protectionist. They are deficit hawks and favor intense fiscal discipline (some today even support the reintroduction of the gold standard). They are also staunchly anti-immigration. As a result of these stances, they oppose globalization. Many of them explicitly state this (such as Pat Buchanan).

The “moderate wing” eventually morphed into the neoconservatives. The neoconservatives are a conglomeration of the “moderate wing” of the Republican Party and Democrats who developed conservative beliefs in the 1960’s. Neoconservatives support American intervention in foreign conflicts (from Vietnam to Iraq). Neoconservatives support free trade agreements (NAFTA, TPP, TTIP, etc.). Neoconservatives are also softer on deficit spending and immigration than their paleoconservative counterparts. On the whole, neoconservatives support globalization for the increased trading opportunities and the ability to spread democracy and American values.

In the 1960’s, conservatives such as William F. Buckley Jr., attempted to define what conservatism was. Buckley created a definition that included Paleoconservatives, Neoconservatives, Christian Conservatives, Libertarian Republicans and Moderate Republicans. This definition later became known as the “Reagan Coalition”, as it put President Ronald Reagan into the White House in 1980. Reagan did not necessarily fit into any of these categories, but he was an interventionist and generally supported globalization. Reagan also identified with the interventionist movement of the Republican Party from the 1960’s onward.

Neoconservatism became more prominent in the Republican Party throughout the 1980’s and became the dominant ideology of the party with election of President George W. Bush in 2000. This has led to a Republican Party that has supported globalization from the 1980’s until now. This can be seen by the support of military interventions in Afghanistan and Iraq that time period. It can also be seen by reliable Republican support for free trade agreements during that time period.

Recently, the Republican Party has taken a turn in a different direction. Donald Trump is more paleoconservative than any Republican nominee for President in decades. His staunch opposition to the Iraq War, willingness to work with Putin and Assad in Syria (a common paleoconservative position) and vehement opposition to free trade agreements (such as TPP and NAFTA) all associate him with the paleoconservative movement. This marks a serious change in rhetoric from a party that previously supported globalization (primarily under neoconservatives), but now has a nominee who opposes it.

This divide within the Republican Party between interventionists and isolationists is nothing new. All that seems to change is the faces of the people representing either side of the debate. If Trump wins the 2016 election, it could make paleoconservatism the ideology of the Republican Party for decades. Trump could also abandon certain positions with his ascension to higher office. George W. Bush campaigned in 2000 on a non-interventionist platform, yet the war in Iraq was the polar opposite of this. Ultimately, it is up to the voters of the right to decide what their opinion on globalization will be.

Lalmohan wrote:MBS and friends have bailed out kushiebaby on his personal business deals. MBS brags to people that kushie is his paltu kutta
MBS forces Qatar into diplomatic doghouse and sanctions to make them do favourable business with kushie
you do the math...

ramana wrote:Trump.is bargaining to waive S-400 sanctions for buying F-16s.

He can go take a hike.

ramana wrote:Trump.is bargaining to waive S-400 sanctions for buying F-16s.

He can go take a hike.

ramana wrote:Trump.is bargaining to waive S-400 sanctions for buying F-16s.

He can go take a hike.

And I believe that the roots of 9/11 came from two terrible bargains. One was that bargain between the Saudi ruling family and the kingdom’s religious establishment, where each blessed the other. The other was America’s cynical bargain with the Saudis, which went like this: “Guys, just keep your oil pumps open, your prices low and don’t bother the Israelis too much, and you can do whatever you want out back — preach whatever hate you want in your mosques, print whatever conspiracy theories you want in your papers and treat your women however you want.”

I believe 9/11 was the worst thing to happen to America in my lifetime.

We can debate what was the right response to the attacks — Afghanistan, Iraq, the global war on terrorism, the Department of Homeland Security, or metal detectors everywhere. But we cannot debate the costs.

We have spent thousands of lives and some $2 trillion trying to defuse the threat of Muslim extremists — from Al Qaeda to ISIS — dollars that could have gone to so many other needs in our society.

Pratyush wrote:

ramana wrote:Trump.is bargaining to waive S-400 sanctions for buying F-16s.

He can go take a hike.

I am in favour of hard american sanctions against India. Only then will there be fire under the Musharraf of our political masters and the r&d bodies will have the required support needed to develop domestic solutions.

ramana wrote:US has more to lose.

UlanBatori wrote:I don't understand the US takleef with S-400. I thought US should WELCOME S-400 in countries where US has access and weapon sales. Surely these countries are not going to use S-400 against US attack (why should US attack?) but US-supplied planes are going to be flying over areas defended by S-400 so at least IFF protocol will be seen by US entities. And, US has no plans to sell competing systems to S-400, hain? More than those already sold? So what is the issue other than "u bought SOMETHING from Rooskies!" which is sheer petulance.

Mort Walker wrote:It isn’t the S-400 per se, but rather the dollar amount of nearly $5 billion. If India buys it, then others buy it too. Guaranteed revenue stream for Russia.

Gyan wrote:Any views on US Mid terms? Are Republicans going to loose both Senate and or Congress?

Kashi wrote:

Mort Walker wrote:It isn’t the S-400 per se, but rather the dollar amount of nearly $5 billion. If India buys it, then others buy it too. Guaranteed revenue stream for Russia.

Turkey and China already bought S-400 before India.

The Republican Party is losing its ability to prevail in democratic competition. One solution to that dilemma, the Trump solution, is to weaken democracy so that a minority can dominate a disunited majority. The 2018 midterm elections will offer a referendum on whether that method can work. If Republicans avoid too-severe losses, the party will likely continue on its present antidemocratic path. But if the losses are significant, the party might be forced to find its way to a more inclusive politics, one that is less plutocratic, less theocratic, less racially chauvinist. Such an evolution will not be easy, but it can be achieved, if moderate Republicans are willing to fight for it.

The word liberal was one of the many casualties of the Vietnam era.

A generation before, Americans competed to own the term. Anti–New Deal Republicans like Senator Robert Taft claimed that they, not their opponents, were the “true liberals.” Former President Herbert Hoover preferred the term historical liberal.

The social turmoil of the 1960s and ’70s ripped away liberal’s positive associations and, in so doing, helped redeem conservatism from the discredit it incurred during the Great Depression.

For two political generations, Republicans have proclaimed the purity of their conservatism. But in a democratic society, conservatism and liberalism are not really opposites. They are different facets of the common democratic creed. What conservatives are conserving, after all, is a liberal order. That truth has been easy to overlook in the friction of partisan politics. It must be reaffirmed now, in this hour of liberal peril.

ArjunPandit wrote:Can Someone help this poor soul understand why this particular journalist is special? Daniel Perl was killed too? That too soon after 9\11

Singha wrote:But a critical mass of deep state and their msm dawgs seem to be on mbs case now

Kushnerji may not be able to block all durvaris this time

Saudi spending on lobbying during these years remained high. But it rose dramatically in 2017—the kingdom spent $27 million on hiring lobbying firms and related activities last year compared with $10 million in 2016, according to the Center for International Policy (CIP), which tracks foreign influence spending in the U.S.

Saudi Arabia was the eighth-highest-spending country in the U.S. last year, according to data from the Center for Responsive Politics (CRP), which also tracks such data. It was surpassed in the Middle East only by the United Arab Emirates and Israel, according to CRP.

But the Khashoggi affair has taken some of the sheen off of MbS and, by extension, Saudi Arabia. Three lobbying firms—the Harbour Group, BGR, and the Glover Park Group—all ended their contracts with the kingdom since Khashoggi’s disappearance. Such moves, however, are rare and likely to be temporary, Freeman said. Saudi Arabia has actually signed at least one lobbying contract amid the crisis.

“There’s sort of a weird dynamic here in that in the immediate aftermath you have this flight away from the country, which becomes something of a pariah. Lobbying and PR firms will distance themselves in the immediate aftermath,” Freeman said. “But then very quickly, and quietly in most cases, a lot of firms will sign new contracts with the country in question. We’re seeing a little bit of that.”