Quote:
|
Originally Posted by aceventura3
Does the above mean that you don't think there are elements of truth in the 'what every we want to call it' piece?
What about starting with #1? I think that has elements of truth, don't you agree?
Before getting lost in a mound of details and battling links - let's clarify our difference.
I think the answer to our energy problem is in the private sector and will best be realized with minimal government involvment. Do you agree? Or do you think the answer lies primarily within government and that the private sector will be unresponsive unless pushed by government?
|
I am a little unclear on your #1 reference.
If you are referring to energy policy, government has always provided incentives to the private sector to offset the initial cost of researching and developing new technologies, from building the trans-continental railroads in the 19th century, to energy, medical research, etc. more recently. I just dont think those offsets should go to the major oil companies who are making record profits in the $billions, as the Bush energy policy does. The democratic alternative supports drilling while balancing environmental impacts, but promotes alternative energy through tax breaks for R&D for small companies willing to take the lead on these alternative technologies.
Now, if by #1, you are referring to the first point in the article:
Quote:
|
Jimmy Carter, elected during the Cold War with the Soviet Union, and (1) believing Americans had an inordinate fear of communism,
|
....the "inordinate fear of communism" is taken out of context.
It is from a major foreign policy speech of Carter's that focused on Human Rights as the central theme of his foreign policy....:
we are now free of that inordinate fear of communism which once led us to embrace any dictator who joined us in that fear. I’m glad that that’s being changed."
http://teachingamericanhistory.org/l...p?document=727
...
.... and is referring to the simplistic concept that
"the enemy of my enemy is my friend" is not always a good policy, particularly when it puts us in bed with the worst (non-communist) dictators, for which we have in numerous cases paid the price at a later date.
Much of the rest of the speech focuses on promoting democracy abroad, a concept that is at the center of Bush foreign policy today.
I do agree that the Carter policy should have also had an emphasis on the need for force when diplomacy fails.....without being as belligerant as the Bush policy as exemplified in Iraq.