We are a commune of inquiring, skeptical, politically centrist, capitalist, anglophile, traditionalist New England Yankee humans, humanoids, and animals with many interests beyond and above politics. Each of us has had a high-school education (or GED), but all had ADD so didn't pay attention very well, especially the dogs. Each one of us does "try my best to be just like I am," and none of us enjoys working for others, including for Maggie, from whom we receive neither a nickel nor a dime. Freedom from nags, cranks, government, do-gooders, control-freaks and idiots is all that we ask for.
It is an analysis that could have been done by a high school social science teacher. The major killers of the current order are universal corruption of the ruling class in the east and west and the failure of the west to recognize the danger of China and how poorly our trade policy was formulated with China and Europe.
Concur Barrister. I am not impressed either, and I have no argument with Ingdyjonesouthere comment either.
The theme of the article seemed to be that if the right statesmen draw up and manage agreements written on parchment, then the peace will be maintained. Then he undercuts his argument with the Crimean War.
He seems to make the same case that socialists make about social programs. If we just have smart enough people running the government then all would be well.
Yes to both above. The "conclusion" section (as in a science paper) reads as a lesson in Hume's Law. All the typical moralistic speculation based on nothing factual, nothing knowable. It is just the usual wish list for that "ought to be" world we've been hearing about for the last century.
I was also not impressed. He basically calls for the USA to become submissive to the realpolitik of a new order led by dark powers seeking that very end. He's right about some things but when I read "Climate Change" it convinces me he's just another lost in the woods "Liberal"