Clint Eastwood – Advertising – Politics

Posted on February 7, 2012 by Tom Liberman

Like many people in this country, I watched the Super Bowl this Sunday. Great game. What I want to discuss today is the Clint Eastwood commercial.

To get in the mood you might want to listen to this or this.

First a little background about Mr. Eastwood. His politics are a mix of ideas that appears largely Libertarian and he has supported both Republicans, John McCain, and Democrats over the years.

When the commercial started I thought to myself, “Oh no, a stupid political ad that tries to pull all the notions of patriotism into support of one politician or another.” As the commercial went on … and on … I began to realize this was more of a heartfelt appeal to put our differences aside and do what is in the best interest of the country. From what I know about Mr. Eastwood; if he says he meant that, then I believe him. I was inclined to believe it before Mr. Eastwood was forced to issue explanations.

Parse that, Mr. Eastwood was forced to issue an explanations because he sent out a message of hope trying to bring the United States together. Forced to issue an explanation! Does that tell you something is wrong with our political process?

Now, I do realize at its heart the commercial was an advertisement for Chrysler and, because it has us all talking, it certainly did its job. But, let’s leave that aside and talk about the political thinking, rather than critical thinking, that seems to drive this country today.

One political pundit, who is now dead to me, was “personally offended” by the commercial. Personally offended by an appeal to come together and make the country better? Personally offended by something that had nothing to do with this person. I’m personally offended when my mother tells me I come across as a know-it-all (she might be right). I’m personally offended when I’m compared to Miles Raymond in Sideways (there might just be some truth to that). I’m not personally offended when someone criticizes Ron Paul. I might disagree with the criticsm but I’m not personally offended. It’s not about me and I don’t have such a colossal ego that I think everything is about me (just most things).

This was a commercial about getting together, working together, overcoming adversity, making your community, the country, the world, a better place. Mr. Eastwood, I salute you, sir.

The voters today, and I’m going to talk about the blame the voters have in this problem tomorrow, seem largely to judge the merit of an idea based on the “D” or “R” in front of the name of the person making the proposal. Is that you? Do you not bother to think about the issue once you hear who is talking? Do you vote for the party and not the person? Do you let other people tell you who to vote for and against?

Are you one of those people who finds it easier to vote by party affiliation rather than spend time critically examining the candidates?

If so, I have one suggestion:

Stop voting. You’re hurting this great country.

Share, Like, Comment, Stumble, Tweet, and all the rest of you think someone you know might find this interesting. Tell me if you disagree!

Tom Liberman
Sword and Sorcery fantasy with a Libertarian Twist

Non-interference versus Isolationism

Posted on February 6, 2012 by Tom Liberman

Much of the criticism I hear about my Libertarian politics concerns the idea of non-interference and often it is because there is confusion between that concept and isolationism.

What Ron Paul and other Libertarians like myself are talking about is non-interference. This dates back to George Washington in his Farewell Address when he suggests avoiding foreign entanglements. The United States long avoided such alliances.

What does Non-Interference Mean

It’s a broad definition and it means different things to different people. Largely non-interference means not having alliances with foreign nations. Not interfering in their internal politics, and not going to war on foreign soil. It is important to consider that times have changed as far as the ability of a nation to extend their force. When Washington was president the United States was physically isolated from Europe and its bickering. It was difficult for European powers to extend their influence into the American region. This has changed with the advent of intercontinental ballistic missiles and connected economies.

What non-interference does not mean, in my opinion, is that we should stay completely out of the affairs of the world. This is isolationism and in the modern world is a dangerous policy. Newt Gingrich is correct when he talks about the dangers of an air burst nuclear weapon and the modern communication grid. We cannot isolate ourselves from the world because the world has the ability to touch us both militarily and economically. We must engage the powers of the world but that doesn’t mean we need to police them or dictate to them.

History

If we look back on American history I think our worst moments came from meddling in the affairs of foreign nation, in regime change policies, in propping up totalitarian regimes that supported us, at least in words if not deeds.

There are Libertarians who support a stricter version of non-interference that borders on isolationism. They might well quibble with some of my characterizations here. I don’t think the United States should disengage completely from countries like Pakistan. Such policies in regard to Cuba are a mistake. I think we should always attempt to talk with other nations, supply them with help if they ask for it, but we should minimize our attempts to influence their policy decisions.

It is in our interest if Pakistan helps hunt down people trying to hurt the United States but I don’t think we should be trying to purchase that cooperation with what amounts to bribery. If Pakistan wants to cooperate we should engage with them but cautiously. George Washington warned us to be wary not only of our international enemies but of our allies as well and with good reason. They are interested, rightly so, in what is best for their nation.

Conclusions

The waters of international politics are rife with danger and caution is a good ally. Engage but don’t interfere. A fine line.

Tom Liberman

Rise of Islam

Posted on February 4, 2012 by Tom Liberman

I’m of the opinion that one of the largest blunders in United States history was the handling of the Iranian Revolution of 1979. I’m looking at with thirty plus years of hindsight but it’s clear that the moment was a key point in the history of the world.

Before the revolution Iran was ruled by the Shah of Iran. The Shah was in many ways not that bad of a man in that he was largely secular and helped women’s rights but he nationalized the oil industry and suppressed dissent ruthlessly. He was viewed as a puppet for the west who wanted oil.

The Shah’s reputation is actually undergoing a revival in Iran but this is largely because of the oppressive nature of the regime that took power. I talk about all of this merely as background for my main argument.

The Iranian Revolution was the first signal of modern Islamic power, fueled by oil money, that is largely responsible for much of the war and horror we see in the world today. While the Ayatollah and his revolutionary cohorts did promulgate a theocratic state they were largely a popular uprising of the people. Certainly the communist Soviet Union provided agitation but, by and large, it was a revolt of the people.

The revolutionaries took American hostages and we’ve had an adversarial relationship with them ever since. Iran has used its money and religious fervor to influence the rise of Islamic states and terrorism all over the world. What would have happened if President Carter had pushed back from an initial knee-jerk reaction to the revolution?

What if we had told the Iranian leaders: You were right. We shouldn’t have meddled in your country’s affairs. Welcome to the world of nations. We don’t like the idea of a theocracy but we’re willing to work with you.

Would the world be better today? I think so. Perhaps Iran wouldn’t have become so radicalized and other Arabic nations would have looked to us a guiding light rather than an enemy to be destroyed.

It’s all speculation of course. There are so many other variables involved and what happened, happened.

But, I think it is an object lesson of sorts. When situations like this arise in the future, how should we as a nation handle them?

One of the leading causes for the Iranian hatred of the U.S. that continues to this day was our meddling in their affairs after World War II. This leads me to the Libertarian idea of non-interventionism. I’ll talk more about that and how it is different than isolationism tomorrow.

As always, Like, Tweet, Stumble, and otherwise share my ideas if you think they are worthwhile.