Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

elaristotle

elaristotle's Journal
elaristotle's Journal
December 31, 2014

Should Americans get to 'Vote' on War?

I just read the James Fallows article in the Atlantic, and thought he made an interesting point. If the wars under the last two Presidents had been put to the American voters to decide - there would likely have been a very different outcome.

http://www.theatlantic.com/features/archive/2014/12/the-tragedy-of-the-american-military/383516/
[link:http://www.theatlantic.com/features/archive/2014/12/the-tragedy-of-the-american-military/383516/|

June 9, 2014

Barack Obama and the Trader Principle

Who knew the Bergdahl deal would invoke Ayn Rand?

Ayn Rand Neocons have a concept called the Trader Principle, where two people or groups trade something of value for something held by another group. According to the Ayn Rand accolytes the Trader Principle is a sign of virtue in a person. It would be surprising for them to admit that Barack Obama might be applying the Trader Principle in negotiating the POW for Gitmo detainees deal. In fact I suspect they would try to re-define the Trader rather than allow it to define Obama as virtuous. And that is exactly what they have done.

In the Trader Principle you are trading something valued by another person, in exchange for something you value. If Bergdahl is someone the United States values, then the Trader Principle certainly applies here. However if the Neocons can convince people that Bergdahl is unwanted here then Obama is guilty of playing a suckers game. It's nothing personal against Bergdahl, but he must be portrayed as a deserter (or worse) so that the Republicans can win their case against Obama.

Reagan was given kudos by Ayn Rand types for his Iranian hostage trade deal. He was a Trader, and so was Alan Greenspan who exchanged his Ayn Rand cloak for a seat on the FED. George Bush Jr was a Trader when he gave Americans the extended War on Terror in exchange for securing his second term. In 1994 Newt Gingrich traded his Contract on America for the power to hold sway in D.C. There is a long history of Republican 'Traders' who have attempted to embody the Ayn Rand ideal. But never have they acknowledged a Democrat capable of it.

So either Obama just scored a 'Trader' deal and the Republicans need to acknowledge it, or he is the ultimate sucker/anti-American and the Republicans just need to convince us of this. You decide.

May 9, 2014

Why do Republicans want to start a new Cold War? For the political benefits of course...

Republicans benefited greatly from the first Cold War. They had the ability to silence debate using the House UnAmerican Activities Committee. They benefited from their stand on military weapons spending. They built political support by increasing fear of Communism and the Soviet Union. So the chance to revisit the Cold War based on events in Ukraine? Of course they will play it to the hilt.

Profile Information

Member since: Fri Dec 27, 2013, 11:51 PM
Number of posts: 26
Latest Discussions»elaristotle's Journal