1,523
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 398:
Line 398: + + + + + + + + + +
→Another definition of liberal -2
::Here's my criticism of RSK based upon what you've quoted: they are refereing to [[classical liberalism]], and the idea's of "liberal democracy" and "liberal institutions" expounded by [[Woodrow Wilson]], not [[Franklin Roosevelt]], [[Alger Hiss]], and [[Josef Stalin]], the architects of the [[United Nations]]. So before we travel down this path too far, we must reexamine what the architects of this system of liberal governance and international law had in mind, what the historical record produced. Then we must separate that from Wilsonian ideology. And somewhere in the mix, we would also have to hammer the square peg of "realism" into the round hole of "liberalism," which our United Nations forefathers left for us. Do you see the problem? [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 16:58, 26 August 2007 (EDT)
::Here's my criticism of RSK based upon what you've quoted: they are refereing to [[classical liberalism]], and the idea's of "liberal democracy" and "liberal institutions" expounded by [[Woodrow Wilson]], not [[Franklin Roosevelt]], [[Alger Hiss]], and [[Josef Stalin]], the architects of the [[United Nations]]. So before we travel down this path too far, we must reexamine what the architects of this system of liberal governance and international law had in mind, what the historical record produced. Then we must separate that from Wilsonian ideology. And somewhere in the mix, we would also have to hammer the square peg of "realism" into the round hole of "liberalism," which our United Nations forefathers left for us. Do you see the problem? [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 16:58, 26 August 2007 (EDT)
:::I do see the problem, and it's the same problem we've had the entire time: you are confused about my definition.
:::First of all, being a member of the UN does not automatically disqualify you from realism. For example, the United States is a member of the UN, but we go around it when it's in our interest to do so (a realist tactic). Just as liberal/conservative is not a solid black and white, liberal/realist also contains shades of gray.
:::Secondly, you keep complaining about drawing a line through history, even though I keep telling you that international politics is not a study of history; we briefly discussed history to understand the context of the current meaning. If you want to discuss the intimate details of the history of the word liberalism be my guest, but I can't contrubute.
:::Lastly, by "liberalism" RSK do not mean classical liberalism. You keep trying to pigeonhole a new definition into something you understand. If this definition of liberalism could simply fit into some other definition, I certainly wouldn't have spent 5 days trying to convince you otherwise. It really would be a lot more efficient if you were to read some IP texts, as I have suggested many times; at least then I know we are speaking from the same perspective. (Though I highly doubt this definition would be in contention at all once you did some reading; maybe you won't like the idea of liberalism but at least you would agree that the definition is correct).
:::I ask again, is there a possible answer that could satisfy you anyway? Am I simply wasting my time? If you will only be satisfied when I break down and say "Rob you are right; the entire field of international politics doesn't know the definition of liberal" then we need to stop right here; that's simply not going to happen. [[User:Jazzman831|Jazzman831]] 19:45, 26 August 2007 (EDT)