보수는 안일한 ‘현실안주론’을 벗어 던져야!
전은석(회원)
첫째, ‘보수 필승론’이다. ‘홍준표 후보를 지지하면 홍준표 후보가 당선된다’고 주장하는 어느 저명한 여론조사 전문가의 말을 철석같이 믿는다. 그분 말씀의 요지는 이렇다. 보수표 40%는 어디 안 간다, 집토끼가 집 나간다고 산토끼 안 된다, 유권자는 회귀 본능이 있어서 결국 제자리도 돌아온다. 그런데 이 분이 이와 같은 근거로 박근혜 대통령 때의 대선에서는 족집게처럼 적중시켜 탄성을 자아내게 했는데, 작년 4·13 총선에서도 똑같은 논리로 여당의 180승 압승을 출구조사 직전까지 한 종편방송에 나와서 주장하다가 완전히 빗나간 사실은 언급 안하시고 똑같은 논리를 이번 대선에서도 펴고 계신다.
표는 하늘에서 떨어지는 것이 아니다. 지난 대선 결과와 정당지지도, 수십 차례 진행된 그동안의 세대별 여론 조사를 종합할 때 문재인 후보는 40%의 고정표가 있다고 보아야 한다. 그런데 지난 대선에서 박 대통령이 악전고투 끝에 있는 표, 없는 표 다 끌어 모은 표가 51.6%였다. 그렇다면 이번 대선에서 문재인 후보가 가져간 40%를 제외한 나머지 60%에서 안철수, 심상정 후보가 자신들의 표를 떼어가고 나면 설사 보수 단일화에 성공한다 하더라도 무슨 수로 홍준표 후보가 40%를 얻는단 말인가? (조갑제닷컴, 발췌)
-------------------------------------------------------------
하이브리드 전쟁 시대가 도래했다
황성준(문화일보)
하이브리드전이란 정규전과 비정규전 그리고 사이버전이 결합된 새로운 형태의 전쟁 개념이다. 또, 그 수행 주체가 국가를 넘어 반군(叛軍), 테러단, 심지어 범죄집단까지 확대된다는 점에서 기존 전쟁과 구별된다. 정규전과 비정규전이 배합된 전쟁은 새삼스러운 것이 아니다. 베트남 전쟁이 대표적이다. 그러나 대개 정규전 부대와 비정규전 부대가 분리돼 있었으며, 이들의 작전을 병행한 ‘복합전(compound war)’이었다. 그러나 하이브리드전은 정규전 부대와 비정규전 부대가 분리되지 않은 채 정규전과 비정규전을 함께 수행하는 새로운 형태다.
그 후 2008년 8월 러시아·조지아 전쟁에선 정규전과 사이버전이 배합된 형태로 진화했다. 그리고 마침내 2014년 3월 크림반도 합병과 그 후 지금까지 계속되고 있는 동우크라이나 내전에서, 분리주의 반군과 위장 침투한 러시아 정보·특수전 요원에 의한 정규전 및 비정규전, 그리고 여기에 정치·정보·심리전이 결합한 하이브리드 전쟁의 완성된 형태가 나타났다. 그밖에 러시아계 주민들이 몰도바로부터 분리 독립을 요구하고 있는 트란스니스트리아에서도 낮은 강도의 하이브리드 전쟁이 전개되고 있다.
러시아 하이브리드전 개념에서 핵(核)은 주요 전제 조건이다. 핵은 사용하기 위한 것이 아니라, 미국이나 유럽 국가의 개입을 막기 위한 수단이다. 기존 개념으론 전쟁이 발발한 것인지 아닌지조차 애매한 하이브리드전에서 핵으로 무장한 러시아에 맞서 정면 개입하는 데 부담을 느낄 수밖에 없게 만드는 것이다.
북한이 하이브리드전 개념을 적용하면 어떻게 될까. 핵 장착 대륙간탄도미사일(ICBM)의 완성을 통해 미국의 개입을 저지하고 종북세력과 결합한 사이버 정치 심리전을 통해 대한민국을 혼란에 빠뜨린다면, 한국군이 자랑하는 최신식 재래식 무기는 별로 쓸모없게 될 수도 있다. 여기다 하이브리드전에서 주요 역할을 해야 할 정보기관마저 무력화된다면 상황은 더욱 불리해진다. 이는 머지않아 현실로 닥칠 수 있다. 대선 후보들을 보면 이런 인식 조차 없는 것 같다.
(발췌)
-------------------------------------------------------------------
조갑제TV] 정치범 수용소 출신 강철환, “진짜 빨갱이는 남한에 있다”
흥미진진한 북한 정치의 막후 이야기가 있다.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
<take me in your arms>는 인터넷을 돌아다니다 우연히 발견한 이별의 노래이다. 아마 이별의 노래 중에 가장 아름다운 노래 중의 하나일 것이다. 그래서 나의 책 <사랑과 성의 작은 학교>(위퍼블 출판, 판매)에서 이 노래를 번역하고 간단한 설명도 붙였다. 하지만 지금도 여전히 그렇지만 당시 컴퓨터에 서툴러서 링크를 걸지 못했다. 그래서 아쉬운 마음에 여기에 링크를 건다.
doris day가 부른 < take me in your arms>
1932년 Ruth Etting이 부른 노래, 노래 3절을 모두 불렀고, 색다른 맛이 있다.
Jack Vettriano - Helen Grayco가 부른 노래
일본의 MAYA라는 가수가 재즈풍으로 부른 노래
1966년 Arthur Prysock이라는 남성 가수가 부른 노래
Frank Parker & Marion Marlowe 두 가수가 가곡처럼 부른 노래
이 외에도 여러 명의 가수가 이 노래를 불렀다.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
멍크 토론 예고
MUNK DEBATE Q&A
Goodbye to all that: Is the international order as we know it over?
Building walls. Closing borders. Scrapping trade deals. Exiting international organizations. Across the world, a crop of politicians is pushing for dramatic changes to the agreements and institutions that have defined the international order since the end of the Second World War. In the United States, President Donald Trump has embraced the slogan “America First,” an inward turn for the country seen as the linchpin of the international system. Is this the end of an era? That will be the question in the spotlight Friday evening at the semi-annual Munk Debates in Toronto. The Globe and Mail’s Joanna Slater talked to the two speakers set to clash over the topic: historian Niall Ferguson and international-affairs expert Fareed Zakaria
Joanna Slater
The Globe and Mail
닐 퍼거슨과의 대담
Niall Ferguson is a senior fellow at the Hoover Institution at Stanford University. He is the author of 14 books, including most recently a biography of former U.S. secretary of state Henry Kissinger.
How would you define the liberal international order?
This is one of these phrases that disintegrates the minute you start trying to define it. There’s a rather academic view that says that, after World War II, the United States led an institution-building exercise that would create a world based on free trade and democracy and that paved the way to globalization and that we all lived happy ever after – except then these dreadful populists came along, and if only they would go away, we could have our liberal international order back.
I think one has to be a little careful with this nice-sounding term, “liberal international order.” First of all, conservatives had as much to do with the international order after 1945 as liberals did. Secondly, I don’t know how international it really was until relatively recently, since Russia, China and India didn’t really enter the global economic system until the 1990s. Finally, it wasn’t that orderly. It has been characterized by high levels of conflict – not as high, obviously, as the 1940s, but not exactly peace and tranquillity.
Is the international order as we’ve known it over?
We should recognize that it is certainly past its peak. The globalization process overshot and produced a quite legitimate backlash. While people like me and Fareed were enjoying ourselves at Davos and Aspen and saying how marvellous the liberal international order was, a rather large number of ordinary North Americans were not feeling quite so chipper.
What are the roots of that frustration?
If one is asking why the average household in North America did so poorly, or at least in no way improved its lot since around 1999, part of the answer is technology and part of the answer is globalization. But that distinction is a little arbitrary, because what distinguishes the technological revolution is precisely that things like iPhones could be designed in California but made in China. The paradox of the liberal international order is that it made a lot of technology affordable while at the same time destroying manufacturing jobs in what people like to call the heartland. That’s where globalization overshot in economic terms.
It’s a funny liberal international order that benefits primarily a communist, one-party state. But that is exactly what has happened. The principal beneficiary of this system since the 1990s has been China. While it’s great to say that 300 million Chinese people have been pulled out of poverty, and I’ve nothing against those people, the reality is that there has been at the same time a significant erosion of living standards for middle-class and working-class Americans. One reason why Trump’s arguments have plausibility and have attracted supporters is that he was the only Republican candidate – indeed the only candidate – who was prepared to say that the liberal international order has been more beneficial to China than it has been to the U.S. That’s just true. One should stop pretending otherwise.
Does the fraying of the liberal international order make the world less stable?
One of the classic and bogus arguments that defenders of the liberal international order make is that it has been responsible for peace and that if you tamper with it we’ll plunge into World War III. That’s just a very implausible line of argument. It usually involves people conflating populism and fascism, which I’m constantly arguing against. The thing about nationalists is that they’re not particularly interested in getting involved in wars in faraway places, whereas neoconservatives and liberal interventionists in the 1990s and 2000s were all too eager to have boots on the ground.
I’d like to get your thoughts on the future of some of the building blocks of the international order. Will the European Union survive?
The European Union will turn out to have committed suicide because its leaders decided the monetary union would be the way to accelerate the process of integration and it has had the exact opposite effect. The EU got that wrong and then it got the immigration issue wrong. The Europeans forgot that borders are really the first defining characteristic of a state. As they became borderless, not only internally but externally, they made themselves open to a catastrophe, which was the uncontrolled influx of more than a million people.
How about the United Nations?
The UN is this giant hypocrisy where it pretends to be the parliament of nations but actually the Security Council is run by five great powers. And because they never can agree, it hardly ever does anything good. We’ve reverted to the Cold War norm, where the Russians oppose what we want to do and we oppose what they want to do. If the UN Security Council could actually agree on something, it would be the most powerful body in the world. When it has been able to act, it has been highly effective, from Korea to the first Gulf War.
What about the International Monetary Fund?
Well, Christine Lagarde is an old friend of mine, and I don’t want to be mean, but the IMF has really become a kind of parody of itself. It has become involved in a series of huge, open-ended bailouts to countries that really shouldn’t have needed its help – Greece being an obvious case, and Ukraine being another fascinating example. You could definitely argue that the IMF, like the World Trade Organization, suffers from a kind of institutional degeneration. You could say the same thing about the World Bank, which has become less and less convincing on issues of economic development. It turns out that the Chinese can do more for African infrastructure in 10 years than the World Bank could do in 50.
What makes you uneasy about the populist, nationalist backlash we’re seeing now?
It’s staringly obvious that there are some meaningful risks to the Trump presidency, as there are risks arising from Brexit. It’s less obvious that there were meaningful risks to unfettered globalization. My position is that the beneficiaries of the liberal international order have failed to see that it has overshot. By and large, people in elite institutions don’t get why people got so pissed – and they still don’t get it. They don’t consider the possibility that this dialling back of globalization was necessary and could, in fact, be beneficial. My worries about Mr. Trump are well known, but at this point I’m very fed up [with the] hysteria from Ivy League professors and Hollywood celebrities. There’s been a kind of massive overreaction to last November’s election. It has created a very distorting prism in which people focus on trivia like the President’s tweets instead of asking: Are we in fact correct to challenge an international order which has been so harmful to the interests of a big chunk of our society? The important thing about this debate on Friday is it shouldn’t be a debate about Donald Trump. It’s perfectly possible to be critical of the liberal international order without being illiberal oneself.
파리드 자카리아의 대담은 생략. 관심 있는 분은 찾아서 볼 것.
-----------------------------------
Richard N. Haass
to be clear: i favor tax cuts, espec corporate. but should be coupled w real spending cuts, mostly in form of overdue entitlement reform
나는 세금 감면, 특히 법인세 감면을 원한다. 하지만 이미 오래 지체된 복지프로그램 개혁의 형식으로, 실질적인 지출 삭감과 결합되어야 한다.
-------------------------------------------------------------
NassimNicholasTaleb 님이 리트윗했습니다
Geoffrey Miller인증된 계정
When SJW(Social Justice Warrior)s demand we ignore 70 million years of mammalian maternal behavior, to conform to this season's PC fad.
여권론자들이 7천만년의 포유동물의 모성 행동을 무시하고, 정치적 올바름에 따르라고 요구하고 있다.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
나심 탈레브 어록
Scientism is our disease.
과학주의는 우리 시대의 질병이다.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Trump Warns There Is A Chance Of "A Major, Major Conflict" With North Korea
by Tyler Durden
Apr 28, 2017 5:20 AM
While emoting sympathy for Kim Jong Un's situation, President Trump told Reuters, during a lengthy interview ahead of his 100th day in office, that he'd "love to solve things diplomatically," but warned that "there is a chance that we could end up having a major, major conflict with North Korea."
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The Next Trade War: Trump Threatens To Terminate "Horrible" Trade Deal With South Korea
by Tyler Durden
Apr 27, 2017 10:37 PM
Two days after launching a trade war with Canada by imposing tariffs on lumber imports, one day after nearly terminating NAFTA (but stopping just shy after an alleged phone call from the leaders of Mexico and Canada), Trump has finally turned his attention to the one nation whose GDP consists of roughly 60% net trade, and which we said several months ago, is far more likely to be punished for trade malpractice than China: South Korea.
Speaking to Reuters and WaPo, Trump - who earlier also told Reuters that a "major, major" conflict with North Korea is possible - Trump sharply criticized the U.S.-Korea Free Trade Agreement, known as Korus, the latest version of which was ratified in 2011 and said that he will "renegotiate or terminate" the "horrible" free trade deal. Next week marks an anniversary for Korus and triggers a review period to potentially renegotiate or ratify a new version of the agreement. (발췌)
-------------------------------------
댓글 없음:
댓글 쓰기