Daily Archives: February 28, 2017

Its somehow fitting that Alan Colmes got his start in standup comedy, since he needed a strong sense of humorand equally strong debating skillsto spar with Sean Hannity and other conservatives at Fox News.

The unabashedly liberal commentator, who died this morning at 66 after a brief illness that has not been disclosed, gained national fame as one-half of the Hannity & Colmes show that launched when FNC did in 1996. But his roots were in radio, working for such powerhouse stations as WABC and WNBC in New York. Colmes remained a Fox News contributor and Fox radio host after the channel ended the prime-time partnership and made Hannity the solo host just before the start of the Obama administration.

Colmes faced a difficult challenge in his heyday as Foxs most prominent left-wing voice, doing battle not just with Hannity but with Bill OReilly and other hosts. His views were not popular with much of the Fox audience, but liberals sometimes criticized him for not being more forceful against Hannity.

The reason the duos chemistry worked, even as their clashes sometimes turned contentious, is that Colmes leavened his arguments with wit, often flashing a broad grin. I take some great pride in seeing how Ive aged you over the years, he told Hannity on air.

In a statement, Hannity said: Despite major political differences, we forged a deep friendship.Alan, in the midst of great sickness and illness, showed the single greatest amount of courage Ive ever seen. And through it all, he showed his incredible wit and humor that was Alans signature throughout his entire life. Im truly heartbroken at the loss of a dear friend.

Despite his uber-liberal image, Colmes once told USA Today:I'm quite moderate... I follow [Rush] Limbaugh on about 100 stations and I precede other conservatives, so I may be the only person giving a different point of view.

But there was no mistaking what side he was on, as was clear when he published his 2003 book Red, White & Liberal: How Left is Right and Right is Wrong.

When his 12-year run in Foxs prime-time lineup ended, Colmes said in a statement that he had approached management about taking on new challenges. Although its bittersweet to leave one of the longest marriages on cable news, Im proud that both Sean and I remained unharmed after sitting side by side, night after night for so many years, he said.

Colmes is survived by his wife Jocelyn Crowley, a professor of public policy at Rutgers University. The family, which asked for privacy, said in a statement: He was a great guy, brilliant, hysterical, and moral. He was fiercely loyal, and the only thing he loved more than his work was his life with Jocelyn.

In an era of political polarization, perhaps his most enduring trait was that even those who fiercely disagreed with him found Alan Colmes likable.

Howard Kurtz is a Fox News analyst and the host of "MediaBuzz" (Sundays 11 a.m. and 5 p.m. ET). He is the author of five books and is based in Washington. Follow him at @HowardKurtz. Click here for more information on Howard Kurtz.

Read the original here:

Remembering Alan Colmes, a liberal who could laugh

LONDON After the annus horribilis that was 2016, most political observers believe that the liberal world order is in serious trouble. But that is where the agreement ends. At the recent Munich Security Conference, debate on the subject among leaders like German Chancellor Angela Merkel, US Vice President Mike Pence, Chinese Foreign Minister Wang Yi, and Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov demonstrated a lack of consensus even on what the liberal order is. That makes it hard to say what will happen to it.

When the West, and especially the United States, dominated the world, the liberal order was pretty much whatever they said it was. Other countries complained and expounded alternate approaches, but basically went along with the Western-defined rules.

But as global power has shifted from the West to the rest, the liberal world order has become an increasingly contested idea, with rising powers like Russia, China, and India increasingly challenging Western perspectives. And, indeed, Merkels criticism in Munich of Russia for invading Crimea and supporting Syrian President Bashar al-Assad was met with Lavrovs assertions that the West ignored the sovereignty norm in international law by invading Iraq and recognizing Kosovos independence.

This is not to say that the liberal world order is an entirely obscure concept. The original iteration call it Liberal Order 1.0 arose from the ashes of World War II to uphold peace and support global prosperity. It was underpinned by institutions like the International Bank for Reconstruction and Development, which later became the World Bank, and the International Monetary Fund, as well as regional security arrangements, such as NATO. It emphasized multilateralism, including through the United Nations, and promoted free trade.

But Liberal Order 1.0 had its limits namely, sovereign borders. Given the ongoing geopolitical struggle between the US and the Soviet Union, it could not even quite be called a world order. What countries did at home was basically their business, as long as it didnt affect the superpower rivalry.

After the collapse of the Soviet Union, however, a triumphant West expanded the concept of the liberal world order substantially. The result Liberal Order 2.0 penetrated countries borders to consider the rights of those who lived there.

Rather than upholding national sovereignty at all costs, the expanded order sought to pool sovereignty and to establish shared rules to which national governments must adhere. In many ways, Liberal Order 2.0 underpinned by institutions like the World Trade Organization and the International Criminal Court (ICC), as well as new norms like the Responsibility to Protect (R2P) sought to shape the world in the Wests image.

But, before too long, sovereignty-obsessed powers like Russia and China halted its implementation. Calamitous mistakes for which Western policymakers were responsible namely, the protracted war in Iraq and the global economic crisis cemented the reversal of Liberal Order 2.0.

But now the West itself is rejecting the order that it created, often using the very same logic of sovereignty that the rising powers used. And it is not just more recent additions like the ICC and R2P that are at risk. With the United Kingdom having rejected the European Union and US President Donald Trump condemning free-trade deals and the Paris climate agreement, the more fundamental Liberal Order 1.0 seems to be under threat.

Some claim that the West overreached in creating Liberal Order 2.0. But even Trumps America still needs Liberal Order 1.0 and the multilateralism that underpins it. Otherwise, it may face a new kind of globalization that combines the technologies of the future with the enmities of the past.

In such a scenario, military interventions will continue, but not in the postmodern form aimed at upholding order (exemplified by Western powers opposition to genocide in Kosovo and Sierra Leone). Instead, modern and pre-modern forms will prevail: support for government repression, like Russia has provided in Syria, or ethno-religious proxy wars, like those that Saudi Arabia and Iran have waged across the Middle East.

The Internet, migration, trade, and the enforcement of international law will be turned into weapons in new conflicts, rather than governed effectively by global rules. International conflict will be driven primarily by a domestic politics increasingly defined by status anxiety, distrust of institutions, and narrow-minded nationalism.

European countries are unsure how to respond to this new global disorder. Three potential coping strategies have emerged.

The first would require a country like Germany, which considers itself a responsible stakeholder and has some international heft, to take over as a main custodian of the liberal world order. In this scenario, Germany would work to uphold Liberal Order 1.0 globally and to preserve Liberal Order 2.0 within Europe.

A second strategy, exemplified today by Turkey under President Recep Tayyip Erdoan, could be called profit maximization. Turkey isnt trying to overturn the existing order, but it doesnt feel responsible for its upkeep, either. Instead, Turkey seeks to extract as much as possible from Western-led institutions like the EU and NATO, while fostering mutually beneficial relationships with countries, such as Russia, Iran, and China, that often seek to undermine those institutions.

The third strategy is simple hypocrisy: Europe would talk like a responsible stakeholder, but act like a profit maximizer. This is the path British Prime Minister Theresa May took when she met with Trump in Washington, DC. She said all the right things about NATO, the EU, and free trade, but pleaded for a special deal with the US outside of those frameworks.

In the months ahead, many leaders will need to make a bet on whether the liberal order will survive and on whether they should invest resources in bringing about that outcome. The West collectively has the power to uphold Liberal Order 1.0. But if the Western powers cant agree on what they want from that order, or what their responsibilities are to maintain it, they are unlikely even to try.

More here:

What Liberal World Order? by Mark Leonard - Project Syndicate - Project Syndicate

DENVER We are only in the second month of Donald Trumps presidency, but many Americans have already tired of the drama, and are wondering what the next 46 months have in store.

Beyond producing constant anxiety, Trumps bizarre presidency poses a more fundamental question: Having already come under siege in many of its outposts around the world, is liberal democracy now at risk of losing its citadel, too? If so, the implications for US foreign policy, and the world, could be far-reaching.

The United States has elected a president whose understanding of American democracy is apparently limited to the fact that he won the Electoral College. To be sure, this does require some passing acquaintance with the US Constitution, where the Electoral College is defined. Beyond that, however, Trump seems to have little respect for the Constitutions system of checks and balances, and the separation of powers among the executive, judicial, and legislative branches of government. Nor does he respect Americas fourth estate, the press, which he has begun describing as the enemy of the American people.

Elections, while necessary, are hardly sufficient for upholding liberal democracys central tenets. After all, Russian President Vladimir Putin, Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdoan, and many other despots have come to power by winning a popular vote.

As any schoolchild should know, elections require all citizens to tolerate views that differ from their own. Elections are not meant to transcend or overturn democratic institutions or the separation of powers. Regardless of how the Trump administration ultimately performs, its first month of presidential decrees or, in American political parlance, executive orders can hardly be viewed as a triumph for liberal democracy.

Trump would do well to study the Constitution; and while he is at it, he should find time to read some of the republics other founding documents. He could start with the 1620 Mayflower Compact, which implicitly recognized the rights of political and social minorities in one of Americas earliest religious colonies.

But Trump is not the only American who should use this moment to reflect on his countrys history and its role in the world. Although the administrations America first sloganeering may sound frightening to some foreign ears, it might come as a relief to others.

Since the end of the Cold War, more than a quarter-century ago, the primary goal of American foreign policy has been to spread democracy around the world. But in pursuit of this lofty ambition, the US has sometimes overreached. Although Americas support for democracy would seem to put it on the side of the angels, its policies have often been implemented with a measure of arrogance, and even anger.

America has sometimes force-fed democracy to countries, or even delivered it at the tip of a bayonet. There are many reasons why liberal democracy seems to be in retreat around the world. But among them is surely the growing resentment of other countries and their leaders, who have tired of listening to American accusations, lectures, and admonitions.

Consider Iraq. Many Western observers were inspired by the sight of Iraqis ink-stained fingers after they had cast their ballots in that countrys first election. But while free elections are often a first step on the road to democracy, the aftermath was not so smooth in Iraq. Political identities became increasingly defined by sectarianism, rather than substantive issues; and it soon became clear that democratic institutions and the culture of tolerance on which they rely are not so easily introduced to societies that have not known them before.

Some years ago, I spoke to a Balkan leader who had just spent the day listening to an American philanthropist lecture him about all of his troubled young countrys democratic shortcomings. As he contemplated the political pain of following the philanthropists free advice, he asked me, What am I supposed to do with that? He had identified a fundamental shortfall in the movement to promote democracy: telling someone how to implement democratic reforms is not the same as taking on the risks and responsibilities of actually doing it.

Notwithstanding its currently toxic political scene, the US still has one of the most successful democracies in history. It provides a great model for others to emulate, but its example cannot be forced on the world. Telling people that their countries have to be like America is not a sound strategy.

Liberal democracy was already off balance before Trumps victory; now it has lost its center of gravity. The next four years could be remembered as a dark period for this precious form of government. But liberal democracy has outlasted its rivals in the past, and it will likely do so again. Those who have fought so hard and sacrificed so much for it will be ready to ensure that it does.

More here:

Liberal Democracy in Retreat? - Project Syndicate

Liberal actress Sarah Silvermanriled up social media users on Monday when she said that she decided not tohave children because she chose to live her fullest life instead. When she received sharp criticism for implying that motherhood prevented women from being able to live their fullest lives, she doubled down and offered an explanation for why she believed that was exactly the case.

As a comic always working & on the road I have had to decide between motherhood & living my fullest life & I chose the latter, Silverman said.

She also remarked that fathers who travel have a different experience, and enjoy the luxury of coming home and being a fun dad.

Many on Twitter didnt take kindly to either of Silvermanscomments, saying that she was not only offending mothers by saying they were somehow living a lesser life, but that she also offended fathers for diminishing their roles.

This isnt the first time Silverman, a self-proclaimed feminist,has made a controversial statement relating to modern-day feminism and gender. In 2015, Silverman tweeted out a list called Ten Rape Prevention Tips and urged her followers to send the list to all the men in their lives.

See the article here:

Twitter explodes as liberal actress implies motherhood keeps women from living their fullest lives - TheBlaze.com