ArmChairCivvy wrote:Interesting question
If one is a conservative (either a capital C, or not, both will do) one is likely to be "an economic liberal".
- but less likely to be a social liberal, though
Funnily enough about Boris both are, at times, asserted.
Without this British 'paradox' which we will still need to see to play out with outcomes, it is not that central to the period of American hegemony. Though that system was, while it was being built (decades), labelled to be predicated on democracy, in fact it was predicated on rules-based multilaterism (with the assumption that the biggest 'guy' would have the loudest say).
- a sound point of departure as when has there ever been a "democracy" ruling in the relationships between nations
- also, while efforts to prop up democracies were essential to keep up the numbers of willing members for multilaterism, the efforts of exporting the democratic model have been a more 'mixed bag'
So who then comes to the scene, dead-set to tear down what liberalism has achieved on the international scene. Well, no one else but the current POTUS himself.
- as for economic liberalism, one could equally argue that the initiatives are pointing towards a return to mercantilism (Indeed, China, which has little to do with liberalism of any definition has been paying attention and been busy building an autarky network of "client states"... seeing that the years during which it has been benefiting the most from the "open order" are coming to an end.)
- even Schumpeter's "Creative Destruction" falls within liberalism... and will get a real test run now, once the dust from the Covid storm starts to settle (could be months, could be years)
Yes, liberalism is a very broad church. Too broad to make generalisations about. If that is your point I largely agree.
This from 2017 expresses my views on the UK's post war 'role':
Zero Gravitas wrote:
Whether by accident or design, the UK's (and US's) consistent aim since ww2 has been to enable and help shape a liberal, rules based international order. This has been very successful.
This aim is the point of the alphabet soup of international bodies. Eg: Dear communist China, you can have all this lovely trade, all you need to do is follow the rules of the WTO.
After some time it is suddenly in China's interest to support international law and free trade.
Track back the history of nearly all of that soup and you will find British lawyers and civil servants disproportionately drafting the initial Terms of Reference and setting it's direction etc
No shots fired. No wars required. Everyone's better off.
It is the support of an international rules based order that the military is there for. Yes the UKs contribution is not as significant as the USs, but we are already seeing with Trump the rise of US isolationism that is no surprise given that much of the US population intuits that they have been doing most of the fighting and dying in return for international hatred from those who hypocritically benefit from liberal free trade just as much as the US. Snooty Europeans keeping their hands clean and their judgements loud.
But, rightly or wrongly, I do think we can safely say that the peak of US hegemon is not only behind us, but that it is retreating even faster than perhaps I had imagined it would. As that article states, none of the Democrats are talking about even a (Bill) Clintonite level of intervention. Let along the George 'W' level. "Leading from behind" is the future it seems.
So the US is returning to something like isolationisim. They didn't intervene in Syria when red lines were crossed. Would they seriously defend Taiwan? Who can blame them if not?
Brexit is widely seen as the UK retreating from multilateralisim (I would quibble over this but will admit that whatever the realities, certainly it will seem to others internatioanlly that the rules based order has lost its two biggest supporters in short order).
Loads of puffed up little dictators (Orban, Maduro, Duterte, Bolsonaro etc etc...) are just waiting to cast all liberal propriety (rules based order) to the far winds as soon as Uncle Sam ain't watchin' no more.
Climate change will (likely, not necessarily) drive up basic costs which will either lower in absolute terms, or reduce the rate of growth in, living standards across the world - breaking the unwritten social contract in every Country that your kids will have a shot at more life chance than the parents did.
Society is being atomised by social media. Critical theory in the liberal arts is actively deconstructing the stories we tell ourselves. These are the same stories we need to tell to see a greater good and to make sacrifices for that.
Can a green religion (climate change) and super-nationalism (EU) replace Christianity and nationalism? Maybe. Given time, but its not looking great right now is it. Witness the recent elections in Australia and the UK
I dont think the risks from technology have been fully taken in to account yet. What does cheap gene editing via CRISPR and others mean in the hands of a basically proficcient terrorist or state actor with nothing to lose?
The global economy has not really recovered from the 2008 crash. Look at how much QE the EU has required to maintain a pretty sub-standard level of growth(!) Look at how much the US has had to borrow under Trump. These are examples of what I think of as 'artificial' economic growth. It is growth without a sustainable economic basis and therefore it will ultimately fail / unwind. That which is unsustainable will not be sustained. Sooner or later bubbles burst. The longer it takes the bigger the bang.
So: