Stardate 20020814.2036

(On Screen): I have just read an amazingly profound article, which now joins a select group along with Kagan, Mead and Peters as the most important I have read regarding international politics. (Update: here's a longer article by Fonte which goes into more detail.)

The very best analysis articles are those which take a lot of things which seem unrelated and show how they're actually part of the same thing, and what that implies. I try to do that here, but I've never written anything as profound as Fonte has. This article shows that a completely new international political movement has formed, which opposes liberal democracy as we in the US practice it. He refers to it as transnational progressivism and makes a persuasive case that it is the underlying philosophy behind such apparently disparate phenomena as the anti-globalist movement, the "sustainable development" movement, those who support the International Criminal Court, much of forces supporting "multiculturalism" in the liberal academia, the apparent hypocrisy of international human rights organizations who are eager to condemn the US while ignoring much worse abuse by third world nations, and the formation of the European Union and the structure of the European Commission in Brussels. It ties in the clear elitist elements that all of these demonstrate and the way that all of them are fundamentally undemocratic and demonstrably contemptuous of the opinions of the "common man". It also ties in with the entire idea that nations should have high taxes, central control and heavy social spending. These things don't seem to be related, but they all express the same fundamental political philosophy.

It explains why to some people there is no greater insult to throw at their opponents than "patriot". It explains the real basis of claims about "international law" and why those who use the term are so emphatic about insisting on it.

It is, quite frankly, the greatest challenge that the US faces. It's even more formidable than Islamic fundamentalism, because we can probably defeat that by largely military approaches, whereas the struggle against transnational progressivism will be strictly cultural, diplomatic, economic and political. And though Islam has little influence inside the US, transnational progressivism already has strong support in this country in certain sectors. They're the people I've been criticizing as "Berkeley Liberals".

Transnational progressivism is fundamentally authoritarian; it believes in the rule of the enlightened few over the unwashed masses, for their benefit. They are stupid and cannot be permitted to make up their own minds, and the enlightened few will do the right thing for them despite themselves. It is profoundly repugnant to every value I hold as a Jacksonian and a supporter of the fundamental principles on which the American system was founded.

And those in the transnational progressivist movement seem to be concentrating what we think of as a disproportionate amount of their scrutiny and ire and pressure on the United States. It's because they recognize that American liberal democracy is the greatest rival they face.

They refer to us as a "rogue nation" and "the world's greatest terrorist" and "the biggest threat to the world" because from their point of view we actually are. We're the biggest roadblock in the way to establishment of the international transnational system they want to establish. We're the only ones who have been standing up and saying "No", and unfortunately we're strong enough and influential enough so that our "No" carries what they think of as undue, disproportionate and undeserving weight.

I find myself feeling the urge to quote nearly the entire article inline here. It's that good and that important. It is actually a summary of a longer article and as such is short, pithy, and loaded with significance. All I can say is that I strongly believe that this article should get as wide of play as possible.

Still, I'd like to summarize a few key points. I've pointed out here many times that the basic idea of the American experiment is that the individual citizen is the foundation of the state, that all power resides with the collective citizenry, and that they grant to the government limited power to govern. Our system relies on citizens having as much access to information as possible, on them feeling free to discuss all issues with each other, and with them feeling free to tell their elected representatives what they think without fear of persecution and with a reasonable basis to expect that they can influence the course of events, and that this same degree of participation and influence be spread as widely as possible. That's why I feel so strongly about the F