Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : President Barack Obama -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: JBTFD who wrote (29191)	8/30/2008 11:29:48 AM
From: ChinuSFO	Respond to of 149317

Liberal democracy will still prevail Francis Fukuyama August 28, 2008 Are we entering the age of the autocrat? It is tempting to think so after watching Russia's recent clobbering of Georgia. That invasion marks a new phase in world politics, but it is a mistake to think the future belongs to the Russian strongman Vladimir Putin and his fellow despots. I wrote an essay in 1989, The End Of History? and in it argued that liberal ideas had conclusively triumphed at the end of the Cold War. But today, US dominance of the world system is slipping; Russia and China offer themselves as models, showing off a combination of authoritarianism and modernisation that offers a clear challenge to liberal democracy. They seem to have plenty of imitators. Although General Pervez Musharraf finally agreed last week to step down as president of Pakistan, that key US client has been ruled dictatorially since 1999. In Zimbabwe, Robert Mugabe refuses to give way despite having lost an election. In Latin America, democratic freedoms are being eroded by populist, democratically elected presidents such as Hugo Chavez of Venezuela. Take all this together and writers have suggested it is a return to the Cold War, the return of history or, at a minimum, a return to a 19th-century world of clashing great powers. Not so fast. We are moving into what is labelled a "post-American" world, but democracy and capitalism still have no real competitors. Today's authoritarian governments have little in common, save their lack of democratic institutions. Few have the brawn, cohesion and ideas required to truly dominate the global system, and none dream of overthrowing the globalised economy. There is a big difference between those who run strong, coherent states and those who preside over weak, incompetent or corrupt ones. Today's autocrats can prove surprisingly weak when it comes to ideas and ideologies. Nazi Germany, the Soviet Union and Mao's China were particularly dangerous because they were built on powerful ideas with potentially universal appeal. Despite recent authoritarian advances, liberal democracy remains the strongest, most broadly appealing idea out there. Most autocrats, including Putin and Chavez, still feel they have to conform to the outward rituals of democracy even as they gut its substance. And if today's autocrats are willing to bow to democracy, they are eager to grovel to capitalism. The Chinese Communist Party's leadership recognises its legitimacy depends on continued breakneck growth. Democracy's only competitor in the realm of ideas is radical Islamism. Some disenfranchised Muslims thrill to the rantings of Osama bin Laden or the Iranian President, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, but the appeal of this kind of medieval Islamism is limited. In lieu of big ideas, Russia and China are driven by nationalism. Russia, unfortunately, has settled on a version of national identity that is incompatible with the freedom of the countries on its borders, but today's Russia is still very different from the former Soviet Union. China's nationalism, on proud display at the Olympics, is more complex. The Chinese want respect for having brought hundreds of millions of citizens out of poverty in the past generation. But we do not yet know how that sense of national pride will translate into foreign policy. It does not have a well-articulated sense of what the country represents in the larger world. The so-called Beijing Consensus, which mixes authoritarian government with market economics, is popular in many developing countries, and with good reason: under Beijing's rules, national leaders can just do business and make money, without being hectored about democracy and human rights. But China's development model works well only in those parts of East Asia that share certain traditional Chinese cultural values. In dynastic China, a sense of accountability was fostered by the moral education of rulers and by an elite bureaucracy that was oriented toward public service. That legacy lives on. But this sort of paternalistic stewardship is a far cry from the forms of governance seen in much of Africa, Latin America or the Middle East. All of this makes our world both safer and more dangerous. It is safer because the self-interest of the great powers is tied to the overall prosperity of the global economy, limiting their desire to rock the boat. But it is more dangerous because capitalist autocrats can grow much richer and therefore more powerful than their communist counterparts. And if economic rationality does not trump political passion, the whole system's interdependence means that everyone will suffer. A critical issue that will shape the next era in world politics is whether gains in economic productivity will keep up with global demand for such basic commodities as oil, food and water. If they do not, we will enter a much more zero-sum, Malthusian world in which one country's gain will be another country's loss. A peaceful, democratic global order will be much more difficult to achieve. Growth will depend more on raw power and accidents of geography than on good institutions. And rising global inflation suggests that we have already moved a good way towards such a world. Francis Fukuyama is a professor at the Johns Hopkins University's school of advanced international studies. This is an edited version of an article that first appeared in The Washington Post. This story was found at: smh.com.au

To: JBTFD who wrote (29191)	8/30/2008 12:12:21 PM
From: koan	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 149317

The Republicans are mean at worst and insensitive at best. Look at their leading pundits: Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Ann Coulter, O'Reilly. Here is the 800 lb Gorilla in the room few will talk about. And the subject Dale Baker banned me for just bringing up!! Tells you something about Dale Baker's philosophy! In 1980 Reagan developed his "Southern Strategy" which picked up the disafected southern racists who could not gain their objectives with a third party of dixiecrats, so they took the hand Reagan offered to them. The south being so upset with having integration forced on them by the dems (Kennedy's;) and were so angry with the dems, they bolted the party led by Strom Thurmon and ran a third party. First Strom Thurmond and Jesse Helms and later George Wallace. But it was a very cynical, and mean strategy the Republicans had developed appealing and encouraging the very worst in people to get votes. And they have continued their divide and concouer policy ever since. And let us look at that issue more carefully. Why did not even one state in the south have a simple majority that said: " wait, this segregation law is not only wrong it is outragous". It was outragous (and very very very stupid and mean!) to make people of a different color live with the yoke of tryanny around their neck. For no reason whatsoever. That postion is clearly indefensible. As we understand today! So what were the people in the south thinking? Or not thinking. Where was that southern hospitality everyone talks about? And much of that imbecilic racism still pervades the south. And now the Republcian's have moved on to a new issue to divide Americans. They can no longer overtly support racism or even sexism as well, so now they engage in gay bashing. Which IMO is exactly like racisim just a tad more sophisticed to understand. The Republicans probably won the 2004 election by gay bashing. Wanting to pass a constitutional ammendment to prevent gay marriage and forcing dems to denounce it. I have a zillion gay freinds and they just want to live their lives like everyone else. Free of prejudice, free of ostrazism and free to be full open members of society with the rights all of us enjoy. Like loving their partner! Gay bashing is so stupid and so mean it really pisses me off-lol. Everyone wants to marry the person they love. What is wrong with Republcians that they can neither see this simple truth, or the pain and suffering they are causing; and would actully go out of their way to hurt people who have done nothing to them? It amazes me anyone would vote Republican. It is a barbaric party!