I want to bring to your attention a pleasant discovery I made recently. As most of my readers know the vast majority of my posts focus on international affairs. I sometimes dabble in domestic policy issues but I feel some things are left to those who are better able to cover them, like this guy, this guy , this gal, this gal and this gal. A wise man, as it were, knows his limits.
One of the things I find most disturbing about many lefty bloggers (as with most Liberals) is their inability to take foreign policy seriously, excepting those mentioned above). For too long the Democratic Party has avoided foreign and defense policy in favor of issues that are more complimentary towards their domestic electoral prospects. This is a direct result of the damage done to the Democratic Party's soul by the lies of Johnson and McNamara. Although most Liberals will instinctively disagree, Vietnam destroyed the Democrat's ability to use American power and force for good cause; it became a party that, until Bosnia, eschewed diplomacy backed by power in favor of diplomacy backed by moral rhetoric.
"What's the point," I hear you saying. My reply: "I'm getting there."
A few days ago I stumbled upon a blog maintained by three Americans currently attending Oxford. I was referred to the site by a conservablogger (I don't remember who) and I was skeptical as I began wading through multiple posts by the trio. I needn't have been. Oxblog appears to be dedicated to international relations as is mine. The bloggers are conservative but maintain quite a bit of intellectual consistency, a very rare find in blogistan.
The first post is a semi-fisking of Nick Kristof. I have written previously that I think Kristof was a great reporter but his columns are really lacking. The Oxbloggers pretty much say the same thing. Their comments in the brief post about Kristof and South Korea are accurate and their suggestions, while they would appear to many as hard to swallow, are appropriate.
The second posting I read was all about the Neocon project for Iraq. A while back I wrote that I have some sympathy for the neocon project, for its goals are essentially true to our core values but that there is a huge discrepancy between the Bush Administration's actions and its words. If the Bush Administration's actions embodied the ideas that the Oxbloggers have I could see myself supporting it. But they do not. More on this later.
The final post from Oxblog that I read today was written by David Adesnik, who takes on Fareed Zakaria in a serious of posts called "Fareed between the lines." I've only read the first one and looking forward to the others. I found Mr. Adesnik's post chock full of trenchant observations, refreshing in its honesty and candor. Oxblog is more of a rare find than I was expecting.
Adesnik highlights one of the problems that I have with many neo-liberal writers such as Dr. Nye, who's book, The Paradox of American Power, I recently finished: the clash between our interests and our ideals. For most old-school liberals the clash between our values and our interests usually ends in a well meaning but ineffective support of our values at the expense of our interests. This is mostly the result of the Democratic Party's poor imagination when it comes to international and defense issues. But is part of the hangover they have from their disastrous policies in Vietnam.
When discussing Nye and others Adesnik writes:
"In arguing that nations’ interdependence provides them with a rational, self-interested motive for cooperation, neo-liberals effectively adopt realism’s belief that the primary determinants of a state’s behavior are its interests, rather than its ideals. An implicit corollary to this assertion is the idea that nations judge their rivals primarily according to their interests rather than their ideals. If one adopts such a position, a logical extension of it is the belief that soft power is fragile, since its rests on goodwill rather than self-interest."
I'd agree with Adesnik that for much of the last 60 years many nations, especially our European allies, have judged us by our ideals. Most of our actions, with a few notable exceptions, have been true to our values. As I wrote in an earlier post:
I will be reading their blog in the future. I wish there was a comparable lefty blog like it. Unfortunately there is not. Most of the lefty blogs avoid discussing matters such as these, more's the pity. The Left needs to be bold in its thinking of international and defense issues, not timid and reactionary.
There is, however, a disturbing intellectual inconsistency with the Oxbloggers. They advocate, as do I, the use of the American government and the tools at its disposal to make the world a better place, to cure it of its more glaring ills. This is an essentially liberal, activist, project. Their corresponding lack of the same agenda at home is bothersome. How can a government be used to cure social ills by promoting democracy abroad yet not be called upon to do the same thing at home?
This is a powerful discrepancy that the Left, if it got its act together, might be able to exploit.
I'm not holding my breath.
Posted by Sean-Paul @ 12/22/2002 12:26 PM
| TrackBack
Comments:
If you think America's actions abroad since WW II are true to our ideals, you've never lived abroad. I did, for twenty years. There's a reason America is generally disliked. Ask Poindexter, ask Kissinger. As Chavez in Venezuela. Ask Oliver North.
Posted by: John Isbell on December 23, 2002 12:08 AM
Yeah, I got confused on that one too. Did the article mean to imply that Americas ideals included installing dictators and crushing democracy, or did it mean to imply that America didn't spend most of its time doing those things? Generally a big, "HUH?"
Posted by: DavidByron on December 23, 2002 03:03 PM
I am not sure which of Bush's policys you have a problem with?
I think he has a good idea where he wants there to go that is in sync with our ideals. The path he feels we must travel to get there might not be the one you would travel but I think his goals are in line with the good of the country.
One of the major problems our government now faces is that we are choking on our own system. In our business dynamic leaders are always inovating and getting the most bang for thier buck. In government we are prohibited from that because of the status quo. Domestically we are in major need of government downsizing at all levels. Perhaps that is too harsh, let's say right sizing. We need to dump things that don't work and move our resources where they can be most effective. There are great vested interests who oppose this but it must be done and I think Bush knows this.
It has already begun but the major changes will have to wait for his second term because the cry will be so great that if he tries to do what must be done in the next 2 years there won't be a second term.
