Buffoonery Charles Krauthammer LGF



I am so much a cheese head I can’t tell a ‘centrist’
from a hard core Leftist radical
(click to enlargen, the url is here)

The highly esteemed Charles Krauthammer has just recently stated that B.Hussein Obama is not a centrist, but a Left-Liberal that is promoting the New Liberalist” agenda, domestically and abroad. The Tundra Tabloids will place its trust in the wisdom of Charles Krauthammer of the simple minded novice tomfoolery of Charles Johnson any day of the week. This is just another example of why LGF is on the skids. KGS
Charles Krauthammer:
Henry Kissinger once said that the only way to achieve peace is through hegemony or balance of power. Well, hegemony is out. As Obama said in his General Assembly address, “No one nation can or should try to dominate another nation.” (The “can” in that declaration is priceless.) And if hegemony is out, so is balance of power: “No balance of power among nations will hold.”
The president then denounced the idea of elevating any group of nations above others–which takes care, I suppose, of the Security Council, the G-20, and the Western alliance. And just to make the point unmistakable, he denounced “alignments of nations rooted in the cleavages of a long-gone Cold War” as making “no sense in an interconnected world.” What does that say about NATO? Of our alliances with Japan and South Korea? Or even of the European Union?
This is nonsense. But it is not harmless nonsense. It’s nonsense with a point. It reflects a fundamental view that the only legitimate authority in the international system is that which emanates from “the community of nations” as a whole. Which means, I suppose, acting through its most universal organs such as, again I suppose, the U.N. and its various agencies. Which is why when Obama said that those who doubt “the character and cause” of his own country should see what this new America–the America of the liberal ascendancy–had done in the last nine months, he listed among these restorative and relegitimizing initiatives paying up U.N. dues, renewing actions on various wholly vacuous universalist declarations and agreements, and joining such Orwellian U.N. bodies as the Human Rights Council.
These gestures have not gone unnoticed abroad. The Nobel Committee effused about Obama’s radical reorientation of U.S. foreign policy. Its citation awarding him the Nobel Peace Prize lauded him for having “created a new climate” in international relations in which “multilateral diplomacy has regained a central position, with emphasis on the role that the United Nations and other institutions can play.”
Of course, the idea of the “international community” acting through the U.N.–a fiction and a farce respectively–to enforce norms and maintain stability is absurd. So absurd that I suspect it’s really just a metaphor for a world run by a kind of multipolar arrangement not of nation-states but of groups of states acting through multilateral bodies, whether institutional (like the International Atomic Energy Agency) or ad hoc (like the P5+1 Iran negotiators).
But whatever bizarre form of multilateral or universal structures is envisioned for keeping world order, certainly hegemony–and specifically American hegemony–is to be retired.
This renunciation of primacy is not entirely new. Liberal internationalism as practiced by the center-left Clinton administrations of the 1990s–the beginning of the unipolar era–was somewhat ambivalent about American hegemony, although it did allow America to be characterized as “the indispensable nation,” to use Madeleine Albright’s phrase. Clintonian center-left liberal internationalism did seek to restrain American power by tying Gulliver down with a myriad of treaties and agreements and international conventions. That conscious constraining of America within international bureaucratic and normative structures was rooted in the notion that power corrupts and that external restraints would curb arrogance and overreaching and break a willful America to the role of good international citizen.
But the liberal internationalism of today is different. It is not center-left, but left-liberal. And the new left-liberal internationalism goes far beyond its earlier Clintonian incarnation in its distrust of and distaste for American dominance. For what might be called the New Liberalism, the renunciation of power is rooted not in the fear that we are essentially good but subject to the corruptions of power–the old Clintonian view–but rooted in the conviction that America is so intrinsically flawed, so inherently and congenitally sinful that it cannot be trusted with, and does not merit, the possession of overarching world power.

NOTE: Obama has embarked upon a dangerous agenda that seeks to tighten the screws on US economic domination and world hegemony, and is thusly actively working against its own self interests. A”centrist” would not act in that way, and Charles Johnson, as a pseudo concervative, would of course fail to see or admit that.

2 Responses

  1. LOL!

    The Obaminator is no "centrist" and he is no "left wing liberal"- this guy is a diehard commie, a parvenu and deceiver.

    He is the center of the abyss, that much for center.

    Abu Hussein Obama hasn't done anything for America since he was elected, but everything to destroy it and Israel with it. America's enemies must be laughing their sorry asses off!

  2. The Sheik speaks the truth, and CJ is his Goebbels stooge.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.