I want to talk about idealist vs. realist foreign policy, but I've kind of been scared to. Or rather, I'm scared of the possible conclusions.
How so?
Well...if we say that we should live up to our ideals, then what's to keep us from going around and trying to make everyone else do so as well? "Become a capitalist democratic federal republic or we'll invade!" (Which is essentially what Russia claims we do).
Then there's the problems at a strategic level. Same problem we faced in a counterinsurgency. If you try to be everywhere at once, you're going to be rather weak everywhere. You won't be anywhere in sufficient strength to really make a difference (if your opposition is determined).
It's also the same problem with tackling poverty, I think. If some wealthy philanthropist decided to give all their money away equally, everyone would end up with such a small amount that it wouldn't make a difference. Idealism may be great in theory...but how do you apply it to the real world dilemmas of our time?
How do you apply idealism about human rights, say, consistently? If Russia and China think we're not serious about human rights, it's hard to blame them...we've been so inconsistent. (Though I think they believe human rights is just something we bring up to conceal a more selfish interest, rather than understanding that it's mostly genuine and the only inconsistency is that our realists don't feel it's worth risking our necks over.)
At the same time, idealism is actually pretty important. It what's gives us a future worth fighting for. A future TO fight for. Head in the clouds and unrealistic though idealists may be, their the ones that actually make the world a different (and sometimes better) place. Those who accept the world the way it is and learn to conform, realistic though they may be, are pretty much ensuring that the future is just like the present. In all it's flaws.
Not only that, Jim Collins noted that the corporations that lasted all had a greater purpose than simply 'to make money'. In a similar fashion, I think most people need to feel like their group is about more than selfish survival. That's what I like about this facebook meme:
No matter what you call us vs them, you can see that each side is pretty much exactly the same. That what you call them is just a matter of perspective. Is this always true? No, I don't think so. Yet to reasonably say that our side is better, we have to be about something more than just "raison d'etat"
Otherwise, well...a government is a government is a government, and it probably doesn't matter too much who is in charge so long as they make the trains run on time. (Since someone might misunderstand - I'm half joking here. Later on I might go into different economic systems and what they mean, or discuss the development of nationalism, and how little it mattered in earlier time periods. Right now it would be too much of a digression.)
That's enough for now. I still haven't gotten to the heart of our own strategy, but this seems like a good stopping point for now.
How so?
Well...if we say that we should live up to our ideals, then what's to keep us from going around and trying to make everyone else do so as well? "Become a capitalist democratic federal republic or we'll invade!" (Which is essentially what Russia claims we do).
Then there's the problems at a strategic level. Same problem we faced in a counterinsurgency. If you try to be everywhere at once, you're going to be rather weak everywhere. You won't be anywhere in sufficient strength to really make a difference (if your opposition is determined).
It's also the same problem with tackling poverty, I think. If some wealthy philanthropist decided to give all their money away equally, everyone would end up with such a small amount that it wouldn't make a difference. Idealism may be great in theory...but how do you apply it to the real world dilemmas of our time?
How do you apply idealism about human rights, say, consistently? If Russia and China think we're not serious about human rights, it's hard to blame them...we've been so inconsistent. (Though I think they believe human rights is just something we bring up to conceal a more selfish interest, rather than understanding that it's mostly genuine and the only inconsistency is that our realists don't feel it's worth risking our necks over.)
At the same time, idealism is actually pretty important. It what's gives us a future worth fighting for. A future TO fight for. Head in the clouds and unrealistic though idealists may be, their the ones that actually make the world a different (and sometimes better) place. Those who accept the world the way it is and learn to conform, realistic though they may be, are pretty much ensuring that the future is just like the present. In all it's flaws.
Not only that, Jim Collins noted that the corporations that lasted all had a greater purpose than simply 'to make money'. In a similar fashion, I think most people need to feel like their group is about more than selfish survival. That's what I like about this facebook meme:
No matter what you call us vs them, you can see that each side is pretty much exactly the same. That what you call them is just a matter of perspective. Is this always true? No, I don't think so. Yet to reasonably say that our side is better, we have to be about something more than just "raison d'etat"
Otherwise, well...a government is a government is a government, and it probably doesn't matter too much who is in charge so long as they make the trains run on time. (Since someone might misunderstand - I'm half joking here. Later on I might go into different economic systems and what they mean, or discuss the development of nationalism, and how little it mattered in earlier time periods. Right now it would be too much of a digression.)
That's enough for now. I still haven't gotten to the heart of our own strategy, but this seems like a good stopping point for now.
No comments:
Post a Comment