I will be the first to admit that the goals of the political left are laudable, and based on setiments of compassion and economic justice. What sane human being would argue against world peace, an end to poverty, tolerance of others, protecting the environment, etc, etc, etc? Within Western Civilization the left has been largely successful in bringing it's core issues to the forefront of our consciousness. In Europe especially, much of their program has actually been implemented. Now, however, after many years of nearly free rein, there appears to be at least a mild backlash with the elections of center-right governments in Sweden, Germany and France.The problem is not so much the motives of the left, but their execution.
One of the hallmarks of the left has always been it's boundless energy and impatience. Perhaps this is due to the fact that idealistic young people form the core of it's ranks. Whatever the reason, it's ideology has always been marked by a kind of religious zeal that, ironically, they would be the first to condemn when exhibited by members of a religious group. Those who preach the gospel of tolerence are very often the most intolerent in their dealings with opposition. Once again the religious analogy is appropriate. The left sees it's ideology as the only legitimate path toward the ultimate goals we all share. Encounters with opposition frequently lead to the labeling of opponents as racist, imperialist, reactionary, or one who does not care about children or the environment. Of course this kind of behavior is absurd, but it effectively obfuscates the real issues, and puts the opposition on the defensive. In extreme cases members of the left hold their cause to be of such importance to mankind that any tactic including lying, cheating and worse are justified.
All this is kid-stuff, however, compared to the very real danger the left poses in the realm of security. Again, let me say that the goals of the left are laudable, and they have succeeded in bringing about a sort of modern enlightenment witin Western Civilization on a wide range of issues, but therin lies the problem. Essentially, the West is the only civilization that accepts the new paradigm. THis puts us in a very dangerous position. In the Islamic world, in China, Russia and other regions of the earth we are seen as weak and effeminate; a decadent, hedonistic civilization in decline. If we are to survive as a civilization, we must find a balance between compassion and tolerence, and the kind of realistic thinking and physical toughness necessary to prevail in a dangerous and violent world.

Why is it that a civilization that prides itself on caring for its weakest citizens, is regarded as weak. It takes a strong person to show compassion, tolerance and self-sacrifice in the face of cruelty, unkindness and intolerance.
It takes a really strong man to show his emotion when having to deal with the blows that life deals.
It is easy to give in to our basest instincts, to destroy an enemy, to hit out at a recalcitrant child, to use physical power to control your personal cosmos.
It is a much harder thing be kind, caring and compassionate, and to take the chance of appearing weak to the unfeeling, less civilized world.
You only have to go into a children's playground to watch a bully pick on the perceived weaker members of the group, to realize that the true weakness is in the bully, not his target.
No, I disagree with you. It is up to the liberal west to take on the 'bullies' of the warmongering, merciless perpetrators of harm to the weakest members of those societies.

Aggrippina
I do not think that we disagree.

Rodoq
If it makes you happy then Bush is really an idiot ok? No lie. With respect to capitalism, it is pure and simply the behavior of people who are free. So if you wish to eliminate freedom by imposing a totalitarian regime, then by all means eliminate capitalism. Also, you see everything in terms of your ideology. You think you have my number because I have said certain things, but you are far off the mark. As a liberal, socialist, communist, whatever you are, you should understand that the world is not all black and white. Wise up!

I totally agree that the West needs to be realistic when dealing with international politics and foreign affairs. We may disagree as to what being "realistic" actually means in practice though.

__________________
"Of course the fact that a person believes in racial equality doesn't prove that he's a communist...but it certainly makes you look twice, doesn't it? You can't get away from the fact that racial equality is part of the communist line." - Joseph McCarthy

Political Forum Diplomacy Game Map (In Progress)
Current Diplomacy thread

Actually its wrong that countries with social democratic traditions have to be pacifist or weak.

Look for example at Switzerland. Even though they moved quite a bit towards the right on certain issues (for example when it comes to immigration), its still a country that follows some common European traditions. But nonetheless until recently every man was olbiged to own a weapon at home in case the country should be attacked. They maintained a unique and huge alpine fortress system with entire barracks, artilery etc in the mountains...

In short Switzerland even though it scaled back its efforts just recently (after the decline of the Soviet threat), its everything else than helpless even though it uses all its efforts really only against real aggressors.

So we have to differentiate.


Regarding comparing leftist ideology with religion does not work in my opinion. After all many leftist people believe are believing Christians. Supporting certain political ideologies can lead to fanatism indeed, but if being leftist means one embraces that as a religion, every political ideology could be accused of it. And also the current dominant American political ideology would be no exception. One about spreading freedom and democracy...

But as I said, I dont think this works. Religion is not the same as fanatism. You can be also fanatic about something that has nothing to do with religion.