I talked about realpolitik in my last post, and probably made it sound negative. I wanted to go into more detail here, because I don't think that it has to be.
Realpolitik is tied up with the belief that good politics are what's best for the nation (whether that means ensuring a good source of oil, or building alliances against threats, or what-have-you). The problem, I think, is that people can justify almost anything.
I have to admit, realism seems to reflect international politics more than any other model. The notion that democracies don't fight seems silly, considering we did go to war with England in the 1800s. The belief that globalism and the interconnectivity between nations will make war disappear has some merit. It means there are more severe disadvantages for fighting. But if the issue seemed important enough, I think nations would overlook that, as well.
But realism sometimes seems harsh and cold, and I think most people associate it with a cynical, pessimistic and negative view of human nature. One I disagree with rather strongly.
If you look at who people admire and respect, it's generally NOT the ones seen as master manipulators. Nor the game players. (If you want to go the Christian route and consider the Bible - when Jesus tells his disciples that he will make them fishers of men, he was telling them that he would make them leaders. How? By teaching them to serve others, and to be good shepherds, not by giving them 48 Laws of Power.)
To bring this back to the title above - I think policies that make our nation stronger are ones that would expand our options, build off a strong base of support, and stay true to our national values rather than cynically giving lip service to them.
I sometimes think of a book I'd read, years ago, on the Ottoman Empire. From what I remembered, the Ottoman Empire (before becoming "the sick man of Europe") was pretty smart about how it operated. It offered better governance than its neighbors, so much so that Christians in the Balkans preferred Ottoman rule. It's been a while since I read the book, and I know the details were not as simple or nice as that...but the principle seemed sound. Besides, it resonates with the American concept of a "city on the hill" trying to lead by example.
We have a lot going for us. We have enormous resources, a large and capable population, wide oceans to our east and west, and only two nations (Canada and Mexico) on our immediate borders. We're too large to pretend we can't or don't have an influence on the rest of the world, we just have to figure out how to do so wisely. Intervene, and people will criticize you for meddling. Don't intervene, and people will criticize you for doing nothing when you could have made a difference. For better or worse, we have an effect on the outcomes of current events. The question is, what outcomes do we want to pursue? And how capable are we of making those outcomes a reality?
We are weaker, in that we seem rather incapable of making things happen the way we profess we want them to. Iraq has hardly lived up to our rhetoric. Nor has Afghanistan.
In the last decade, it seems like we, as a nation, grow more and more constrained. Even worse, the influence of business on our foreign policy (both somewhat isolated from the average American) means that we have done things in the past that make it harder to operate in the present. If you read about our history in South American and Latin America, for example, you find that Hugo Chavez's ridiculous conspiracy claims were not as far fetched as they sounded. Our past actions made it easier for someone like Hugo Chavez to oppose American interests.
(The CIA has a reputation that can be used against us, as much as for us. Want to claim that what you are doing isn't really a bad thing? Claim that 'the West' is stirring up trouble and supporting your opponents.
Realpolitik is tied up with the belief that good politics are what's best for the nation (whether that means ensuring a good source of oil, or building alliances against threats, or what-have-you). The problem, I think, is that people can justify almost anything.
I have to admit, realism seems to reflect international politics more than any other model. The notion that democracies don't fight seems silly, considering we did go to war with England in the 1800s. The belief that globalism and the interconnectivity between nations will make war disappear has some merit. It means there are more severe disadvantages for fighting. But if the issue seemed important enough, I think nations would overlook that, as well.
But realism sometimes seems harsh and cold, and I think most people associate it with a cynical, pessimistic and negative view of human nature. One I disagree with rather strongly.
If you look at who people admire and respect, it's generally NOT the ones seen as master manipulators. Nor the game players. (If you want to go the Christian route and consider the Bible - when Jesus tells his disciples that he will make them fishers of men, he was telling them that he would make them leaders. How? By teaching them to serve others, and to be good shepherds, not by giving them 48 Laws of Power.)
To bring this back to the title above - I think policies that make our nation stronger are ones that would expand our options, build off a strong base of support, and stay true to our national values rather than cynically giving lip service to them.
I sometimes think of a book I'd read, years ago, on the Ottoman Empire. From what I remembered, the Ottoman Empire (before becoming "the sick man of Europe") was pretty smart about how it operated. It offered better governance than its neighbors, so much so that Christians in the Balkans preferred Ottoman rule. It's been a while since I read the book, and I know the details were not as simple or nice as that...but the principle seemed sound. Besides, it resonates with the American concept of a "city on the hill" trying to lead by example.
We have a lot going for us. We have enormous resources, a large and capable population, wide oceans to our east and west, and only two nations (Canada and Mexico) on our immediate borders. We're too large to pretend we can't or don't have an influence on the rest of the world, we just have to figure out how to do so wisely. Intervene, and people will criticize you for meddling. Don't intervene, and people will criticize you for doing nothing when you could have made a difference. For better or worse, we have an effect on the outcomes of current events. The question is, what outcomes do we want to pursue? And how capable are we of making those outcomes a reality?
We are weaker, in that we seem rather incapable of making things happen the way we profess we want them to. Iraq has hardly lived up to our rhetoric. Nor has Afghanistan.
In the last decade, it seems like we, as a nation, grow more and more constrained. Even worse, the influence of business on our foreign policy (both somewhat isolated from the average American) means that we have done things in the past that make it harder to operate in the present. If you read about our history in South American and Latin America, for example, you find that Hugo Chavez's ridiculous conspiracy claims were not as far fetched as they sounded. Our past actions made it easier for someone like Hugo Chavez to oppose American interests.
(The CIA has a reputation that can be used against us, as much as for us. Want to claim that what you are doing isn't really a bad thing? Claim that 'the West' is stirring up trouble and supporting your opponents.
No comments:
Post a Comment