That's some pretty fancy footwork over whether Pakistan was a "liberal" democracy before the coup. The U.S. does not allow convicted felons from voting. That means it does not have universal adult suffrage. Does that mean it isn't a liberal democracy? As for the War of 1812, if Britain wasn't a democracy because only property-owners could vote than neither was the U.S., regardless of chattel slavery. Only adult males with a minimum personal wealth had the vote in the U.S. Poll taxes that prevent the poor from voting were only done away with in 1964. Does that mean the U.S. was not a liberal democracy until 1964? It seems that the definition of what constitutes a liberal democracy is so exacting that no country can be considered a liberal democracy.
6:17 But federalism, by definition, means that each state gets to define rights (as long as they don't contradict the US Constitution). 27:27 That's being destroyed in the USA, and has been for the past 50 years. 51:28 Who didn't really "take out his knee".
1. No, you miss the point. Federalism should restrict the central authority to supress the US States centrally. - Done in the Civil War by the Union. - Done by Roosevelt's central authority in the name of good, making individuals getting overruled and the State above all. 2. It has been destroyed since Roosevelt, further with the Civil Rights movement, and sometimes restored. Mearsheimer is supporting the destruction. 3. As there is no "liberal nationalism", there is just blatant force, what is the opposite of how the West was founded and bloody Socialism.
Funny how my understanding of nationalism is so different. For me nationalism is somewhat of a contradiction in a nation. Ukranian nationalism in the face of an imperial neighbour denying their rright to exist is a movement towards freedom and rights for the Ukranians. Within a nation (is the USA a nation?) it is (always?) the cry for a different, a 'true' nation, a cry for segragation of something out of the nation. Everything else is patriotism.
This is a load of crap. The War of 1812 is perfectly fine. The US and the UK went to war because we had a clash of national interests. It had nothing to do with slavery and it had nothing to do with who can vote. It happened for the same reason war always happens. Our principle interests were in conflict. For the US, it was impressment of US sailors into the British Navy and a blockade of European ports wreaking havoc on US trade. For the British, the blockade was critical to their war effort against Napoleon. Normally, the war might have been avoided if Britain had not been at war with France and Napoleon.
Idiot. He's saying countries that become factionalized along those lines are more likely to have civil wars. Having diversity doesn't automatically mean a country is factionalized; you're making that assumption.
Good lecture. I think the question about the "Great Liberal Peace" should be about diminishing the possibilities of war, rather than removing war outright. It's impossible. If an event like 9/11 happens again from out of nowhere, the public is of course going to demand war, just like with War on Afghanistan and the Spanish-American War. In that case, an even greater danger is whether or not elites think that the people don't know what's best for themselves and decide to disenfranchise voting power. I wrote this at the beginning of watching the lecture so I think I probably did regurgitate some of Armstrong's talking points.
I can never wax lukewarm over one of these excellent lectures. It's always hot or cold.
Thank you very much for sharing this.
Brilliant lecture. I keep listening to this over and over again.
That's some pretty fancy footwork over whether Pakistan was a "liberal" democracy before the coup.
The U.S. does not allow convicted felons from voting. That means it does not have universal adult suffrage. Does that mean it isn't a liberal democracy?
As for the War of 1812, if Britain wasn't a democracy because only property-owners could vote than neither was the U.S., regardless of chattel slavery. Only adult males with a minimum personal wealth had the vote in the U.S. Poll taxes that prevent the poor from voting were only done away with in 1964. Does that mean the U.S. was not a liberal democracy until 1964?
It seems that the definition of what constitutes a liberal democracy is so exacting that no country can be considered a liberal democracy.
6:17 But federalism, by definition, means that each state gets to define rights (as long as they don't contradict the US Constitution).
27:27 That's being destroyed in the USA, and has been for the past 50 years.
51:28 Who didn't really "take out his knee".
1. No, you miss the point. Federalism should restrict the central authority to supress the US States centrally.
- Done in the Civil War by the Union.
- Done by Roosevelt's central authority in the name of good, making individuals getting overruled and the State above all.
2. It has been destroyed since Roosevelt, further with the Civil Rights movement, and sometimes restored. Mearsheimer is supporting the destruction.
3. As there is no "liberal nationalism", there is just blatant force, what is the opposite of how the West was founded and bloody Socialism.
finally, someone who says Missouri properly XD
I'm from the Ozarks and went to college in St Louis. All my professors got a good chuckle out of it.
I would rethink Canada being green
Liked and shared.
Funny how my understanding of nationalism is so different. For me nationalism is somewhat of a contradiction in a nation. Ukranian nationalism in the face of an imperial neighbour denying their rright to exist is a movement towards freedom and rights for the Ukranians. Within a nation (is the USA a nation?) it is (always?) the cry for a different, a 'true' nation, a cry for segragation of something out of the nation. Everything else is patriotism.
This is a load of crap. The War of 1812 is perfectly fine. The US and the UK went to war because we had a clash of national interests. It had nothing to do with slavery and it had nothing to do with who can vote. It happened for the same reason war always happens. Our principle interests were in conflict. For the US, it was impressment of US sailors into the British Navy and a blockade of European ports wreaking havoc on US trade. For the British, the blockade was critical to their war effort against Napoleon. Normally, the war might have been avoided if Britain had not been at war with France and Napoleon.
3:10 I thought diversity was a strength? Isn't that the dogma we must follow?
Idiot. He's saying countries that become factionalized along those lines are more likely to have civil wars.
Having diversity doesn't automatically mean a country is factionalized; you're making that assumption.
Good lecture.
I think the question about the "Great Liberal Peace" should be about diminishing the possibilities of war, rather than removing war outright. It's impossible. If an event like 9/11 happens again from out of nowhere, the public is of course going to demand war, just like with War on Afghanistan and the Spanish-American War. In that case, an even greater danger is whether or not elites think that the people don't know what's best for themselves and decide to disenfranchise voting power. I wrote this at the beginning of watching the lecture so I think I probably did regurgitate some of Armstrong's talking points.
Trump 24' 🎉