Five Reasons Why American Conservatives Should be Worried about Nick Clegg

[T_i_B]

This article may be utter cack and wrong on so many counts it's untrue, but it is worth a look.

http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=ZGVmNWQ3N2Q5ZGZmOWFmM2M4NDYyYjk5YWM2OWExNjY=

Thursday night will see the second of three U.S.-style televised debates between the leading candidates in the upcoming British general election: Gordon Brown, David Cameron, and Nick Clegg. The focus this time will be on foreign policy, making the debate of direct relevance to U.S. viewers, who will be able to watch live on C-Span.

As Tim Montgomerie noted in an excellent earlier post, Nick Clegg, the leader of the Liberal Democrats, was widely judged to have won the last debate, on domestic-policy issues (though he failed to offer any real policy solutions), and his party has leapfrogged the ruling Labour Party into second place in the polls behind the Conservatives. Clegg is largely unknown outside of the U.K., but if his party does well on Election Day, he could hold the balance of power in Westminster, and the Liberals could form part of a coalition government if no single party has a ruling majority. This would potentially give Clegg an important say in British foreign policy.

I’ve already described Clegg as the anti-Churchill of British politics, and he is without a doubt the most left-wing major party leader in Britain in a generation (rubbish!). There is some common ground between Clegg’s views and those of the Obama administration, but I think even the current liberal White House would balk at some of Clegg’s extreme positions. Here are five key reasons why U.S. conservatives should be concerned by Clegg’s foreign policy if his party does form part of the next British government:

1. Clegg’s outlook is anti-American.

2. Clegg is not an Atlanticist.

3. Clegg does not believe in a nuclear deterrent.

4. Clegg is a fervent supranationalist.

5. Clegg harbors strong anti-Israeli views.

[Cirque du So-What]

1. First & foremost, consider the source

The National Review has become a virtual organ of the neocons in recent years, and those motherfuckers will say or do anything to advance their agenda.

[T_i_B]

2. I know, but it can be interesting to see the US wingnut perspective

There's some right cobblers in this article. For starters the Lib Dem leader at the last general election was more left wing then Clegg is now, being anti-Iraq war hardly makes somebody anti-American. The leader of a 3rd party really has no need to show any interest in the transatlantic alliance, I could go on here.

[bemildred]

3. Seems like the usual polarizing drivel, such as we are so used to here in the USA. nt

[T_i_B]

14. It has got rather polarized I must admit

On the one hand you have those who seem to think that Nick Clegg is the best thing since sliced bread and on the other hand you've got the RW press who've just decided that he's the AntiChrist and must be attacked at any cost.

The daft thing is that all this stuff is all based on one TV debate. Do people not remember owt about the Lib Dems before the TV debates???

[muriel_volestrangler]

4. Indeed; looking at the writer's bio, it's clear he's lying, rather than writign from ignorance

Nile Gardiner is Director of The Heritage Foundation's Margaret Thatcher Center for Freedom.

His key areas of specialization include: the Anglo-American “special relationship,” the United Nations, post-war Iraq , and the role of Great Britain and Europe in the U.S.-led alliance against international terrorism and “rogue states,” including Iran . He was recently named one of the 50 most influential Britons in the United States by the London Daily Telegraph .
...
Prior to joining Heritage in 2002, Gardiner was Foreign Policy Researcher for former British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher. Working in her Private Office, Gardiner assisted Lady Thatcher with her latest book, Statecraft: Strategies for a Changing World , published by HarperCollins. He served as an aide to Lady Thatcher from 2000 to 2002, and advised her on a number of international policy issues.

Gardiner received his doctorate in history from Yale University , and was awarded several academic scholarships, including the International Security Studies Smith Richardson Foundation Fellowship, and the David Gimbel Fellowship. In addition, Gardiner has two master's degrees from Yale, and a master’s degree and bachelor’s degree in modern history from Oxford University. He has a broad range of international experience, and has lived in four continents: Europe, Africa, Asia and North America .

http://www.heritage.org/About/Staff/G/Nile-Gardiner

There's no way he can't know about the politics of Charles Kennedy, John Smith or Neil Kinnock - all leaders of major parties in the last 20 years (the minimum period for 'a generation') that are definitely to the left of Clegg.

There's an interesting contrast between this posting and the one by Tim Montgomerie, on the same NRO Corner blog, that it links to. While Montgomerie is clearly anti-Clegg, his arguments seem at least based in reality; while the Heritage Foundation/National Review Gardiner is in the made-up world of the American right, where words meant what they want them to mean, and reality is a distant cousin. It's an example of the 'epistemic closure' that some people (including the few remaining intelligent American conservatives left) are talking about - the American right lives in its own closed world, where you know things as 'facts' because another conservative told you, and they knew because another con told them, etc.

[LeftishBrit]

9. 'Margaret Thatcher Center for Freedom'?

That says it all!

:puke:

[Dead_Parrot]

5. He missed "Clegg eats babies". nt

[T_i_B]

6. Sounds like you've seen the #nickcleggsfault stuff on Twitter!

:-)

[salguine]

7. Considering the source, I'm starting to like this "Nick Clegg", as he's known. Only the

National Review would consider the current White House "liberal"...And what do they mean by "anti-American" and "anti-Israeli views"? Is that the National Reviews way of saying the Clegg doesn't have his lips permanently affixed to the US and Israel's asses 24/7?

[nxylas]

15. It means he isn't a servant of the Empire

"Anti-American", in the National Review's definition, simply means "opposed to PNAC".

[LeftishBrit]

8. Insane!

And apparently, according to another article by Gardiner, he is not only anti-American; he is anti-British!

This all seems to be a mixture of extreme American right-wing hawkishness, and extreme British right-wing anti-EU sentiment.

In any case, if he would worry American (and British!) Conservatives, that's a point in his favour as far as I'm concerned.

[TankLV]

10. Well - if they're against him - I'm AUTOMATICALLY in his camp

I've always liked the Liberal Democrats over Labour.

Even back in the 70's.

[depakid]

11. So it's only OK for American "conservatives" to be supranationlists?

Whatever that is...

[LeftishBrit]

12. Translates here as 'pro-Europaean Union'.

Right-wing Brits regard the EU in the same way as right-wing Americans regard the UN.

[depakid]

13. Ah, that makes sense.

Watched the first Debate on APAC (the Australian public affairs channel) and have to say I was very impressed with Clegg.

The guy was not only well prepared, but came across as a very sensible problem solver.

Quite the contrast with the Tory- who spent his time flinging fear and loathing- and Gordon Brown, who spent his time on the defensive.