"Invade the world, invite the world" Wow-- this spmile description (along with the "in-hock-to-the-world" part) does a better job of describing US and British policy folly, no matter what the ruling party, than any overpaid media pundit these days. It also explains why the media's traditional liberal-conservative, Democrat-Republican dichotomy fails to capture the true division of people in the Western world these days: the invade the world/invite the world crony-capitalist globalists (as you point out), and the vast majority of these countries' citizens who both want strict restrictions on immigration (especially by Muslims) and have little enthusiasm for Wilsonian military adventures that have been fouling up the world and bankrupting the US and UK since World War I.I find it interesting how the media in the US and Britain stupidly refer to massive immigration as a "liberal" policy and invasion of countries like Serbia (of which Kosovo is a part) and Iraq as a "conservative" policy. It's the classic fool-the-public, reframe-the-question, divide-and-conquer tactic, to prevent the masses with a common interest from uniting around it, and instead fighting each over irrelevant side issues. So as a result, a neocon-driven worst of both worlds prevails in the USA and United Kingdom-- Gramscian massive immigration *and* financially ruinous imperial wars in the Balkans and Middle East. While the USA's history as an "immigration country" perhaps makes the point much tougher to argue here (same for Australia and Canada I guess), it's patently foolish to argue that mass immigration from the 3rd World is in any way "liberal" or "progressive" in European or Asian countries that have never been nations of immigrants. In fact, mass immigration there is correctly seen by the masses of people in those countries (no matter what their party leanings on other issues) as a tool used by amoral predatory capitalists to decrease wages by the native working class, and to decrease the social cohesion that allows a society to support progressive taxation and a social safety net. In other words, Europe (on the Continent at least) has an understanding that crosses pre-packaged US ideological lines-- that progressive economic policies (seen as "liberal" in the USA) require social solidarity and strict restrictions on immigration to require earned citizenship, controlled numbers of skilled immigrants and, wherever possible, first-preference immigration to overseas ethnic Diaspora (e.g. Italian-Americans going back to Italy or Baltic/West Slavic/Germanic-Americans going back to Germany/Netherlands/Scandinavia), considered very conservative in the USA. These natural ideological allies could never unite within the British, North American or Australia political spheres, whereas homeland-and-soil conservatives on the European continent (offended by the cultural affronts and loss of social cohesion from Muslim mass immigration) find common cause with economic liberal progressives (offended by corrupt big-business interests who want to break unions and reduce wages), who understand that an environmentally-responsible, socially progressive economic regime requires a conservative immigration policy.