Labels Fail

[CBL4]

Sharansky notes in his book that liberal (e.g. democratic) Palestinians were shocked to find out that a right wing Israeli would want a Palestinian democracy. It show the problem with labels.

Having a left wing desire (e.g. liberal democracy for all) makes you appear as a conservative hawk. Wanting libertarian ideals for other people make you want central government meddling with free trade.

I am generally a libertarian because of my great desire to have "liberty and justice for all." However, this same desire turns me in interfering hawk. I support almost all military invasions by the US solely because I want to see more people free. For example, in Iraq I did not really care about WMD or oil but I saw an chance for freedom for millions. I support sanctions against any tyranny. But I still consider myself a libertarian.

Or is there a label I am missing?

CBL

 

[Mycroft]

Or is there a label I am missing?

CBL

Neo-con?

 

[CBL4]

Neo-con?

I had not thought of this but I am not sure it fits.

From Wikipedia:

Compared to other U.S. conservatives, neoconservatives are characterized by an aggressive moralist stance on foreign policy, a lesser social conservatism, weaker dedication to a policy of minimal government, and a greater acceptance of the welfare state.
Neoconservatism is a controversial term whose meaning is widely disputed. The term is used more often by those who oppose "neoconservative" politics than those who subscribe to them; indeed, many to whom the label is applied reject it. The term is sometimes used pejoratively, especially by the self-described paleoconservatives, who oppose neoconservatism from the right. Critics of the term argue that the word is overused and lacks coherent definition. For instance, they note that many so-called neoconservatives vehemently disagree with one another on major issues.

Yes, I do have an "aggressive moralist stance on foreign policy" but I do not consider myself a conservative in many ways.

So I guess am a libertarian with neocon foreign policy views.

CBL

 

[CBL4]

The suggestion that I was a neocon caused an interesting thought process. My immediate reaction was that I was not a neocon and the mere suggestion was offensive. Then I realized I do share many of their views. So then I had to figure out why I found the designation offensive.

I think the reason is because I associate neocons with the Bush administration and the Iraq war. I personally believe that Bush has led an administration in a way that guarantees that the US will torture people and, therefore, consider him a minor war criminal. With Bush in charge, it should have been obvious to me and others that torture would be common in Iraq.

His attitude of ends (freedom) justifying the means (torture and abuse) is abhorent to me. But I realize there can easily be a difference between people (including myself) who wanted to overthrow Saddam for moral reasons and the people who think that freedom justifies torture (e.g. Bush, Ashcroft, Rumsfeld, Gonzalez.)

I guess a true neocon's moralistic foreign policy would cause them to want to invade Iraq but never let them justify torture. It is only the conservative, patriotic idealogues who would think that torture could be a tool for freedom.

I believe the neocons who supported an Iraq war (myself included) would have been correct if this were a different president. But our desire for freedom for Iraqis led us to overlook the fact that a Bush led war would inevitably use torture. He had already shown this in his "war" on terror and the war in Afghanistan. Our zealousness for freedom made us overlook our partners who would turn the morally high road into a crime.

CBL