Thomas P.M. Barnett :: Weblog

I seem to remember that it was a leaked paper about 10 years ago from Chinese military on emerging asymmetric war methods that started Pentagon looking into adjusting our methods. Maybe this is a political trial balloon with similar tendency.

Precisely how are Republicans "fellow rightists" to authoritarian states?

If anything, authoritarian states have tended to be of the leftist flavour: Mussolini's Italy, Hitler's Germany, Mao's China. The few right wing authoritarian regimes fizzled out pretty quickly and has limited geopolitical influence in the scheme of things (see Spain).

Let me propose a different paradigm through which to view the propositions in the article. What you are seeing is not authoritarian states' cuddling fellow rightists because of their supposed authoritarian streaks. What you are seeing are aspirational New Core citizens (and their governments) wanting the ability to enrich themselves and better their standard of living.

You have in the past talked about the rise of the middle class in China and their importance in shaping Chinese policies. What better way to accommodate this new demographic by promising them the opportunity to better themselves (market state style!). Not even a thoroughly autocratic regime as is in place in China could "manage" the exploding Chinese middle class.

When New Core citizens see one candidate promising opportunity and another promising a new order of serfdom, guess which one wins?

Give me a break.

Does Manny have a Phd in political science? His point is right on.

Stalinists are Leftists, not Republicans who defend capitalism. Jeez. "A National Party No More" by Zell Miller comes to mind concerning the oxymoron "conservative Democrat" (I don't understand that term considering today's Leftist Democrat party).

Barnett will someday be a convert to the Grand Old Party ... after the Left takes too much of his earnings. The self evident will, eventually, become ... self evident.

It seems the Chinese liked Bill Clinton well enough.

Try this 3 dimensional Friesian chart (http://www.friesian.com/quiz.htm) to get beyond the left/right, authoritorian/democratic one dimensional confusion. =)

The only illuminating spectrum in political thought is individualism vs collectivism. The individualist believes no societal entity has more rights than any one individual. The collectivist believes in collective coercion for the greater good as determined by those in power. Who are the collectivists? They include populists, socialists, communists, Nazis and fascists. Remember the U.S. is (or was) a republic, NOT a democracy, in which individual rights were expressly guaranteed. Where does the current GOP stand on this spectrum? Wouldn't we like to know. We do, however, know where the Dems stand.

My sense is that the Chinese are looking at who will better protect supply chains for the reliable delivery of energy which McCain gets the nod.

If Obama keeps his mantra of pulling out of Iraq (and I think that position will continue to change as he moves center), this doesn't benefit the Chinese chief need of energy to feed its economy.

"...trust populists ..."

Might as well pile on.

The American Democratic Party is not populist. It stopped being populist in the 1960s. It is a group of minorities, government employees, unions and ideological leftists. American populism is conservative on many issues. The business community in the USA is more comfortable with the GOP, but is unideological and will support whoever is likely to win. Further, the mature democracies of Europe are not populist, in fact they are increasingly anti-democratic. The EU is not popular, for example, and is routinely voted down.

I think this is a post that Tom did on the fly off of his Blackberry, provoking a lot of reaction in the process.

I am always rebelling against the idea that every damn observation or proposition is wrong unless it is elaborately subtle and nuanced. Sometimes large issues have theoretically simple explanations. But how foreign populations and governments react to American politics probably cannot be reduced to a rule of thumb this short.

I thought TPMB was still on a Treo?

Lexington - I do recall that TPMB did mention his posting-off-treo/blackberry-problem. And this is a blog and not one of well written books.

But as for my part in the "pile-on", I have to say that I thoroughly enjoyed it, given that TPMB rarely writes something like this.

Tom's correct.

In general, the Republican Party is a minority party, more serious about trade, and more serious about foreign affairs.

In general, the Democratic Party is a majority power, more serious about social justice, and more serious about human rights.

It's not surprising that from this the leadership of the Old Core admires and trusts Democrats, while the leadership of the Seam admires and trusts Republicans.

"...this is a blog and not one of well written books."

Exactly. And as I said, it provoked a reaction. Which is, I think, the whole idea of thinking out loud, which is what the blog (in part) is for. So, we agree.

But aren't most politicians supposed to be rotten to the Core?

Weekly Standard has more on trade and soft-power, from a Democratic adviser. [1] The piece is missing how an Obama administration would help us with Old Core Europe + Japan, but I think that part is obvious.

[1] http://www.weeklystandard.com/weblogs/TWSFP/2008/07/schumerdodd_adviser_democrats.asp