|
Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Should the principle of universality apply in foreign affairs? |
| Yes. |
|
66% |
[ 6 ] |
| No. |
|
33% |
[ 3 ] |
|
| Total Votes : 9 |
|
| Author |
Message |
gang ah jee
Joined: 14 Jan 2003
Location: city of paper
|
 Posted: Sat Apr 21, 2007 3:22 am Post subject: |
 |
|
| Gopher wrote: |
| Gang ah jee wrote: |
| I suspect that 'Wilsonian Idealism' is nothing more than a pejorative... |
No, it is not.
Wilsonian Idealism; Realism (offensive, defensive, and structuralist); Marxism/Economic Imperialism; Military-Industrial Complex; and Bureaucratic Politics. These are five frameworks many use when explaining American foreign relations. Some argue one position and treat the others with hostility. |
I guess the question would be, 'do any scholars self-identify as "Wilsonian Idealists"'? If not, that's generally a good indication that a term is being applied pejoratively. And by the way, where do neoliberalism, neoconservatism, the English School, constructivism, etc, fit in your taxonomy?
| Gopher wrote: |
| Indeed, most of the bitterest critics, including Chomsky, evince an overriding committment to the Marxian/Economic Imperialism and Military-Industrial Complex frameworks and they usually attribute idealistic motives to themselves ("let's make the world a better place," for example) while denying that others could possibly subscribe to such motives -- according to them, others manipulate, apologize for "power," while they, of course, tell the truth and think critically, etc. |
Well, I don't know much about that. It does seem though that some scholars in the field seem very quick to reject analyses that present their 'side' in a negative light. This might suggest that their concern is loyalty to the interests of the state above other considerations. I don't know.
| Gopher wrote: |
| On your "Technocrats' cost-benefit analyses": it is unfairly reductionistic and does not faithfully represent the American foreign-policy establishment, Gang ah jee. This position also seems to assume an a priori hostility towards said elites/experts -- not surprising; this is Chomsky talking. Why not clarify your position on foreign-policy elites/experts? Should we bar them from foreign-policy advising and place these matters in "the people's" hands? |
Does "Technocrats' cost-benefit analyses" offend you somehow? I apologise. Myself, I thought it quite consistent with Morganthau:
| Quote: |
| At the same time political realism considers a rational foreign policy to be good foreign policy; for only a rational foreign policy minimizes risks and maximizes benefits and, hence, complies both with the moral precept of prudence and the political requirement of success. |
| Gopher wrote: |
| In any case, I reject the assertion that foreign-policy elites/experts manipulate and mislead the public. And those who allege otherwise dramatically overstate their case, esp. where they employ the simple present tense, as if this were a general truth in all places and times, and at least in the American system's context. They rule out everything else but narrow, material interests. Monocausal, reductionist, simplistic. Marx's "nation-states are mere committees to manage capital's interests." |
This is all well and good Gopher, but I my suggestion was that foreign policy elites (let's say, for example, neoconservatives connectioned with the Bush Administration) do not disagree with the misleading of the public. I wonder about your view on this, especially given the below:
| Gopher wrote: |
I do not trust the public, moreover, to make sound foreign-policy decisions anymore than I trust the public to give me sound legal or medical advice. Do we consult the public on raising or lowering the interest rate? Why do you think we do not?
How is foreign policy any different?
The public elects representatives and Senators who sit on foreign-relations and armed-services committees. They dictate budgets, approve or reject the President's nominees to cabinet-level and other positions, they make treaties and delcare war. The President, also elected by the public, seeks advice from a wide variety of sources on his or her conduct of foreign policy. It is already democratic enough. Never, in fact, intended to me more.
To consult with "the people" -- via what? a plebiscite? -- everytime an issue emerges, or whatever, is an aburd idea. Nothing could function. What do "the people" or even Congress agree on in American politics right now regards foreign affairs...?
Not to mention, as I reference, above, "the people" have been known to make some pretty outrageous decisions in the past. And my understanding, finally, is that no one ever envisiaged a system where "the people" would actually directly manage America's foreign affairs. |
Now, aside from the bizarre idea that the populace should micromanage foreign affairs via direct democracy (who said that?), it seems quite clear that a Realist who saw a particular foreign policy action as necessary to promote the national interest would at the same time be hampered by a public that had moral objections to said action. Such a person then might then not object to efforts to mislead the public about the facts of the matter in order to gain their support for said action, as this would still be consistent with the overall moral purpose of the state. Would you not agree?
| Gopher wrote: |
| So I can easily reject this objection regarding the foreign-policy establishment. Marxian-derived, resentful, anticapitalist, antiEstablishmentarianism, antistatist -- no more, no less. There is more to know about this than what those to subscribe to such views tell us... |
From your antidisestablishmentarian perspective, what more is there to know about these people? Are they Fifth Columnists? Are they unamerican?
| Gopher wrote: |
| As far as Chomsky's politics, or at least his allies' politics, which are nearly one and the same, you are reading Buzzanco. See for yourself. Why do you think Buzzanco cites Frederick Douglas's reference to the coming Civil War in his conclusion, where he describes what diplomatic history's purpose ought to be...? |
Heh, I quite liked that article. I agree with him about the sorry state of the postmodern left, and I agree that "the United States was not and is not now exceptionally evil. It is typically evil, like any other powerful empire in history." I recall you saying similar things in the past.
As for why he quotes Frederick Douglass on slavery? I think the quote relates to the idea that standing on principle can change things for the better. What's your reading? A call for revolution? |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Gopher
Joined: 04 Jun 2005
|
| Posted: Sat Apr 21, 2007 10:50 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Gang ah jee wrote: |
| ...the bizarre idea that the populace should micromanage foreign affairs via direct democracy (who said that?), it seems quite clear that a Realist who saw a particular foreign policy action as necessary to promote the national interest would at the same time be hampered by a public that had moral objections to said action. Such a person then might then not object to efforts to mislead the public about the facts of the matter in order to gain their support for said action, as this would still be consistent with the overall moral purpose of the state. Would you not agree? |
Exactly right. When the New Left and other critics condemn the American foreign-policy establishment, its elites and experts, as "nondemocratic," they imply this bizarre idea that the democratic populace should direct foreign affairs.
I kid you not, someone made this exact assertion less than a week ago in an exchange of views I was involved in.
As far as the rest, why must an instance where statesmen acting in the national interest having to explain themselves, sell their case to the public, always be charaterized as "misleading the public about the facts?" That is an extremely cynical point-of-view, Gang ah jee.
| gang ah jee wrote: |
I quite liked that article. I agree with him about the sorry state of the postmodern left, and I agree that "the United States was not and is not now exceptionally evil. It is typically evil, like any other powerful empire in history." I recall you saying similar things in the past.
As for why he quotes Frederick Douglass on slavery? I think the quote relates to the idea that standing on principle can change things for the better. What's your reading? A call for revolution? |
First, I never employed the word "evil" or "typically evil" to describe the United States. That is the New Left's vocabulary. they are certainly entitled to their views and their vocabulary. But I absolutely disagree. They despise governments and hierarchies generally -- but they especially despise the American government. Everything about them screams "belligerent!" Indeed, they exist in a de facto state of war with respect to the American government.
Remember the professor who applauded bin Laden and Al Qaeda's attack on the Pentagon and lamented "too bad they missed...?"
In any case, you might want to consider the deeper historical context of this. This argument has been going on, in one form or another, in American politics since the Federalist/AntiFederalist Papers. I think observers from abroad do not always appreciate this.
Second, I recommended Buzzanco knowing that he would resonate with you. This, along with Chomsky's resonating with you, confirms my understanding of your worldview, by the way. Certainly exists as one of many plausible takes on American foreign relations, but I stress "one of many plausible takes" and not the final, true, objective word on American foreign relations Chomsky and the rest -- including, I believe, you -- claim.
I do not dismiss postmodernist analysis so categorically, either.
As for why Buzzanco cites Douglas, that is how the New Left defines its purpose, Gang ah jee.
| Robert Buzzanco wrote: |
| I often think about Frederick Douglass's passionate oratory...he proclaimed that "it is not light that is needed, but fire; it is not the gentle shower, but thunder. We need the storm, the whirlwind, and the earthquake...[the rest deals with exposing and denouncing slavery's hypocrisy]. |
Theirs has always been a Marxist-Leninist revolutionary mission. See Peter Novick's That Noble Dream: The "Objectivity Question" and the American Historical Profession, Ch. 13, "The Collapse of Comity" to see what I mean.
Not all historians believe that history ought to serve this purpose, Gang ah jee. One cannot impose such worldviews onto nonradicals, especially given that the radicals have never constituted more than a mere minority.
Same thing goes for imposing a universalist system in international affairs, by the way. One group imposing one vision onto the rest -- that was what Wilson proposed in 1918.
Last edited by Gopher on Sat Apr 21, 2007 12:06 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Gopher
Joined: 04 Jun 2005
|
| Posted: Sat Apr 21, 2007 11:11 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Gang ah jee: just read a nice article summing up Wilsonian Idealism from a non-cynical, favorable perspective. Even assigns good-faith motives to American foreign policy.
New-Left scholars must go apoplectic reading this. In any case, yes, some indeed explicitly identify with Wilsonian Idealism -- in answer to your dismissing this so casually, above.
Here is what its author, Tony Smith, threads through in staking out this position...
| Tony Smith wrote: |
...many major American thinkers were not predisposed to look favorably on Wilsonianism as the guiding light of American foreign policy. On the left...profound skepticism...Indeed, to the radical left, democracy promotion was transparent posturing done for nothing more than the sake of advancing the interests of international captialism...
...beyond the leftist scholars, the tradition of realism as a doctrine of foreign affairs had taken hold among most of the intellectual and official elite of the country...[to them,] Wilsonianism was "idealism," "moralism," or "utopianism," a faulty approach to the conduct of foreign affairs...
...for all these wise men no particular worth at all was seen in Wilsonianism, which indeed became something of a textbook example of how American foreign policy should not be run... |
Smith then proceeds to rescue Wilsonianism.
| Tony Smith wrote: |
| America's victory in the struggles against fascism and communism between 1939 and 1989...has resulted for much of the globe in a fundamental reorganization of political power in a morally positive direction... |
See Tony Smith, "Making the World Safe for Democracy in the American Century," Diplomatic History 23 (1999). |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
