Values and Foreign Policy

Hilzoy and Robert Farley offer up what I would consider to be the standard philosopher's rejoinder to Ezra Klein's fatwa against "values" as a center of US foreign policy, namely that policy choices irreducibly implicate value decisions and allegedly value-free concepts like "the national interest" are, in fact, both contestable and, in practice, contested.

I think this is right, but I also think it misses the true force of Ezra's point. The point isn't, literally, that the problem is that we have "too much values" in our foreign policy and need to somehow wring it out with a judicious focus on consequences and pragmatism. The point, rather, is that our political debate has become unhealthily deductive -- with more time and column-inches being spent on the part of the argument that goes "does policy X flow logically from value Y" than on the part that asks "if we do Y, what's going to happen?"

Basically, an enormous amount of intellectual energy has been expended since 9/11 on the proposition that we can effectively outline policies for coping with problems emerging from the Muslim world without availing ourselves of rigorous empirical knowledge of the countries or people in question. This makes sense because the broad American elite basically had no knowledge of these issues. Insofar as the most important people were knowledgeable about any foreign places, those places tended to be in Eastern Europe or the Balkans. Even worse, the community of regional specialists on the Middle East and Persian Gulf regions tend to hold politically unacceptable opinions about the US-Israel relationship and, indeed, the general thrust of US policy in the area. Under the circumstances, the idea that better policy requires better reasoning about values has a natural appeal, but relatively little actual utility.

On the other hand, I do think it's important for progressives to develop more effective public articulations of what it is we're trying to say about US foreign policy, and I do think that communicating these ideas to a mass public requires this kind of flight into the ether of values. In that sense, I think Anne-Marie Slaughter's (the nominal subject of this conversation) ability to link up specific policy ideas to values-stuff is actually extremely valuable.

Comments

"Even worse, the community of regional specialists on the Middle East and Persian Gulf regions tend to hold politically unacceptable opinions about the US-Israel relationship"

I sure don't want Bernard Lewis directing our ME policy any more than he has already.

Posted by rilkefan | July 7, 2007 1:05 PM

In that sense, I think Anne-Marie Slaughter's (the nominal subject of this conversation) ability to link up specific policy ideas to values-stuff is actually extremely valuable.

I'm pretty sure she's married, Yglesias.

Posted by SomeCallMeTim | July 7, 2007 1:11 PM

Great post.

Posted by otto | July 7, 2007 1:11 PM

This makes sense because the broad American elite basically had no knowledge of these issues

Which means, if we were to debate these issues, that the current elite would become the former elite.

The same is true of the military, where the emphasis continues to be on high tech weaponry and not on guerrilla warfare.

For that matter, the same is true of the press corps, whose expertise lies upon inside contacts with members of the current elite, rather than upon knowledge of the MidEast, say, or upon the requisites of Fourth Generation warfare, or other technical issues. Hence the focus of Washington Week In Review is upon whether Bush has had a good or a bad week and not whether the United States has had a good or bad week.

Posted by Duncan Kinder | July 7, 2007 1:31 PM

Good post. I'd like to add that, even long before Bush, nobody in Europe ever (well, maybe somebody, but trust me, it would be the exception to the rule) took this talk about "American Values" seriously - at best (from a US point of view) this type of rhetoric is the object of derision, at worst it arouses genuine anger and revulsion. Now that might be so because we Europeans are a bunch of miserable, melancholic cynics, or because the blatant and gaping discrepancy between US rhetoric and actions has existed for way too long, or more likely a mixture of these aspects - but it's an undeniable fact.

Posted by novakant | July 7, 2007 1:34 PM

I agree with your articulation of Ezra's argument. Unfortunately, that's not how Ezra articulated it.

I don't actually believe Ezra wants to do away with values, but that's what it sounded like in his column. If he had articulated his argument better I think it would have resolved a lot of the confusion and disagreement about his article.

Posted by Joseph | July 7, 2007 1:43 PM

Well, surely another problem is that the policy prescriptions of progressives during the Cold War were pretty well falsified by events, and the more progressive the thinker, the more false his conclusions. So those who thought Marxism would liberate the human potential were more wrong than the Galbraithian left/liberals who said that the Soviet and American systems were both viable alternatives, each with its distinctive strengths and weaknesses, and those Galbraithian left/liberals were more wrong than the Paul Kennedy types who described the Soviet Union as a status quo power with problems but in no imminent danger of collapse, unlikely to withdraw from Eastern Europe, etc. Until I meet a progressive who explains what precisely was wrong, systematically wrong, in the thinking of the foregoing people, and how he or she has corrected it, I won't be listening.

I realize that this sort of analysis of past errors by the professoriate isn't favored at Harvard. Wasn't favored at Yale, either.

Posted by y81 | July 7, 2007 2:08 PM

Re rilkefan

"I sure don't want Bernard Lewis directing our ME policy any more than he has already."

Far better Bernard Lewis then the leftwingers' hero Norman Finkelstein.

Posted by SLC | July 7, 2007 3:47 PM

" Even worse, the community of regional specialists on the Middle East and Persian Gulf regions tend to hold politically unacceptable opinions about the US-Israel relationship and, indeed, the general thrust of US policy in the area"

WTF does that mean? That the people who actually know something about the area while also standing up for basic civil values are bound to be ignored?

"On the other hand, I do think it's important for progressives to develop more effective public articulations of what it is we're trying to say about US foreign policy"

But we should argue politely anyway, like an opinionated whore who knows which side her ass is buttered by?

Posted by seth edenbaum | July 7, 2007 8:20 PM

By the way, I'm here courtesy of Badger
I made a wild guess.

Posted by seth edenbaum | July 7, 2007 8:24 PM

Re: Well, surely another problem is that the policy prescriptions of progressives during the Cold War were pretty well falsified by events

This is also true for the prognostications of the far Right: the Soviets were far weaker than the Right imagined and the "Evil Empire" ultimately collapsed because of that weakness. Nor was Communism monolithic, as witness the split between Russia and China, and lesser splits involing Yugoslavia, Albania and Vietnam. The Domino Theory turned out to be false, and while there were Communists worldwide, there was no worldwide Comunist conspiracy posing a threat to the US domestically.

Posted by Jonf | July 7, 2007 8:25 PM

Jonf, no fact or set of facts could make you engage in critical self-examination, could it?

Posted by y81 | July 7, 2007 9:04 PM

I agree with MY's entire post, except that I really think he meant to write "If we do X, what's going to happen." After all, you don't "do" values. You do policies.

To me, what is wrong with this whole values obsession is hinted at by the existence of the fact-value distinction. That philosophical issue is not important here except to point at a dichotomy: someone whanging off about values all the time is necessarily -- and quite possibly purposefully -- not talking about facts, especially the fact of whether or not a particular policy is likely to work. It's not an automatic game-ender, but it ought to make anyone with an empiricist bent very very suspicious.

Posted by fzz | July 7, 2007 11:16 PM

Fine post, thanks.

Posted by Steve Sailer | July 8, 2007 12:44 AM

"Far better Bernard Lewis then the leftwingers' hero Norman Finkelstein.

Posted by SLC | July 7, 2007 3:47 PM "

If Finklestein was the left's hero, he would be teaching at an Ivy, Berkely, etc. He can't even get tenure at a second-tier university. You are obsessed with him and see him under every rock.

"Jonf, no fact or set of facts could make you engage in critical self-examination, could it?

Posted by y81 | July 7, 2007 9:04 PM "

There's the pot calling the kettle black. You are mistakenly using "left" and "right" as monolithic groups. For instance, you are posting on the blog of an under-30 liberal Democrat. I doubt he was wrong about the Cold War in 1982 because he was likely teething. The popularity of convservative positions WRT the Soviet Union was based on the perceived growing strength of the USSR after the invasion of Afghanistan, not because it was believed to be about to go away. In addition, Reagan and Gorbachev were socially closer than any two American and Soviet leaders in history, which is one reason why Gorbachev felt safe enough from Washington to engage in experimentation like glasnost and perestroika that led to the communist system's collapse. Engagement like in Iceland for a while led to Reagan's expulsion from the right-wing cannon. He pissed of his neocon advisors and George Will said that Reagan's deals with Gorbachev in Iceland lost the US the Cold War. The binary mode of analysis you're using here is too reductive to be very useful.

Posted by Reality Man | July 8, 2007 1:07 AM

Posted by Jonf | July 7, 2007 8:25 PM:"This is also true for the prognostications of the far Right: the Soviets were far weaker than the Right imagined and the "Evil Empire" ultimately collapsed because of that weakness. Nor was Communism monolithic, as witness the split between Russia and China, and lesser splits involing Yugoslavia, Albania and Vietnam. The Domino Theory turned out to be false, and while there were Communists worldwide, there was no worldwide Comunist conspiracy posing a threat to the US domestically."

Depends on what you mean by "Far Right". George Kennan was spot on with his prediction of the end of the USSR, at least for the causes. He was considerably more on the Right than most normal people (in the sense of being conservative as opposed to Fascist which is what I assume you mean). Communism was not monolithic, but that was a failing of the Left *AND* the Right - except the Left thought of that in a good way. So one of the key moments in Leftist history in the West was the invasion of Cambodia by Vietnam.

However if any theory proved to be true it was the Domino Theory. Because China fell, North Vietnam went Communist. Because the North did, the South, Laos and Cambodia did. Thailand would have too, no doubt, if not for the Sino-Soviet split and the Thai government striking a deal with China in the wake of Nixon's trip to Beijing.

As for the worldwide conspiracy, again, if any thing is true about the Cold War it was and is that Communism was a worldwide plot aimed at America and the West run from Moscow. Those Communists in America posed an active threat to the US and were involved in things like spying for Moscow and were active in, for instance, the Anti-Vietnam War protests. Since the collapse of the USSR, Communist Parties worldwide have also collapsed.

Which leads into another problem for dealing with the Middle East - Leftists have moved into Western academia by and large. People who opposed the War in Vietnam now oppose anything America wants to do in the Middle East. It is precisely the experts that are the problem.

Posted by HeiGou | July 8, 2007 4:46 AM

It is precisely the experts that are the problem.

Alright, let's have ideologically reliable know-nothings run US policy in the ME then -
wait, they already do and predictably they're really crap at it.

Posted by novakant | July 8, 2007 6:29 AM

Re: However if any theory proved to be true it was the Domino Theory.

As propounded at the time of the Vietnam War the Domino Theory predicted that the fall of Asian and Pacific nations to Communism would be unstoppable (like a line of dominos falling) if Vietnam fell. This did not happen. Cambodia and Laos fell, but nota bene: these were both nations into which the US had widened the war. Beyond that-- nothing. Thailand did not fall. Malaysia, Singapore and Indonesia did not fall. India did not fall. Nor Australia, Japan, the Philippines. And ultimately, the disengagement from Vietnam actually helped the US in the fundamental struggle with the Soviets. Pulling out of Vietnam meant we were pulling back from China-- and in turn made Vietnam a pro-Russian threat on China's southern flank. This enabled US-China detente which in turn created a huge threat on the Soviet's eastern borders. Faced with two major enemies getting chummy the Russians found themselves all but encircled by threats. Their one attempt to break this encirclement-- Afghanistan-- turned into a fiasco. They were check-mated.

Re: As for the worldwide conspiracy, again, if any thing is true about the Cold War it was and is that Communism was a worldwide plot aimed at America and the West run from Moscow.

As I said, I do not doubt that there were Communists in every country, including the US, earnestly desiring to institute a Dictatorship of the Proletariat. As conspiracies go, they belonged on World's Dumbest Criminals, because they failed wretchedly. Even in countries like Italy, where Marxist parties enjoyed strength among the electorate, the pro-Soviet forces were unable to gain a foothold. In the US they might as well have tried to square a circle. The conspiracy fears were vastly overdone. Except for briefly in the early 30s before FDR there was never even a remote danger that the US would go red. The McCarthy stuff and "reds under the beds" scares were a gross over-reaction and a stain, like slavery or the Japanese internments of WWII, on our nation's reputation and honor.

Posted by JonF | July 8, 2007 2:01 PM

Isn't it "funny" that the ones who know what they are talking about don't agree to the US policies in the Middle East?

Doesn't that tell you something?

Posted by Susan | July 8, 2007 3:07 PM

Posted by JonF | July 8, 2007 2:01 PM:"As propounded at the time of the Vietnam War the Domino Theory predicted that the fall of Asian and Pacific nations to Communism would be unstoppable (like a line of dominos falling) if Vietnam fell. This did not happen."

Actually Truman first talked about the Domino Theory wrt Greece and Turkey. It later became associated with South East Asia, but it never ever was restricted to Vietnam. The theory was that when one country fell to Communism, it would destabilize its neighbors. So it had to be halted somewhere and South Vietnam was where America chose to do it. As it turned out, Communism was halted at Thailand instead. Of course if you have any evidence of anyone specifically restricting it to Vietnam, Eisenhower for instance, I'd like to see it.

Posted by JonF | July 8, 2007 2:01 PM:"Cambodia and Laos fell, but nota bene: these were both nations into which the US had widened the war."

Well no. There were North Vietnamese soldiers in both countries before there were Americans. Again we see the "America is always wrong" school of thought that accepts wrong-doing by those that want to kill Americans. It was the presence of Vietnamese bases on those countries that violated their neutrality and forced America, legally, to intervene.

Posted by JonF | July 8, 2007 2:01 PM:"Beyond that-- nothing. Thailand did not fall. Malaysia, Singapore and Indonesia did not fall. India did not fall. Nor Australia, Japan, the Philippines."

Sure. America held Communism at Thailand. The main reason for this was the Sino-Soviet split. When Vietnam invaded Cambodia, most SEA Communist Parties became pro-Chinese. Nixon produced a more reasonable attitude in China and the Chinese then restrained most of the SEA Communist Parties. Thailand did a lot on their own but mostly they simply did a deal with China.

Posted by JonF | July 8, 2007 2:01 PM:"And ultimately, the disengagement from Vietnam actually helped the US in the fundamental struggle with the Soviets. Pulling out of Vietnam meant we were pulling back from China-- and in turn made Vietnam a pro-Russian threat on China's southern flank. This enabled US-China detente which in turn created a huge threat on the Soviet's eastern borders."

Uh huh. The fall of Vietnam inspired Communist groups across the world and played a part in the rise of Marxist groups across Africa and Latin America. It probably played a large part in the invasion of Afghanistan (although that worked out well for us but not so well for anyone else). It also played a role in the rise of Hezbollah according to Hezbollah. Putting figures on that is hard however. China wanted American support in 1971 - or more accurately Mao did. So they, not Nixon, invited the American ping pong team to visit. Indeed China had probably wanted peace with America for years before that. So there were still six figures worth of American soldiers in Vietnam when the Chinese opened up to the US. Thus the withdraw from Vietnam played no role in that whatsoever. China was a "threat" to the USSR since 1963 or so, so the loss in Vietnam played no role in that whatsoever.

Posted by JonF | July 8, 2007 2:01 PM:"As I said, I do not doubt that there were Communists in every country, including the US, earnestly desiring to institute a Dictatorship of the Proletariat. As conspiracies go, they belonged on World's Dumbest Criminals, because they failed wretchedly."

I see. So you only think threats are a problem if they are run by smart people. Seen Fargo by the way? They were not dumb. Communist Parties have consistently attracted the best and brightest. They had enormous success with very little in the way of resources. They did fail, but that is a reflection on the weak Russian economy I think. And their stupid economic policies.

Posted by JonF | July 8, 2007 2:01 PM:"Even in countries like Italy, where Marxist parties enjoyed strength among the electorate, the pro-Soviet forces were unable to gain a foothold."

Foothold? You mean that the Italian Communist Party, enormous, the largest in a democratic country in fact, and fiercely pro-Soviet, was an illusion? The ICP was entirely a Soviet puppet despite its PR about EuroCommunism as can be seen by the domination of the Party by Togliatti for decades. It was not until the collapse of the USSR that the PCI also collapsed which strongly suggests that as long as the money flowed, so did the loyalty despite a few token gestures against things like the Afghanistan invasion.

Posted by JonF | July 8, 2007 2:01 PM:"In the US they might as well have tried to square a circle. The conspiracy fears were vastly overdone. Except for briefly in the early 30s before FDR there was never even a remote danger that the US would go red. The McCarthy stuff and "reds under the beds" scares were a gross over-reaction and a stain, like slavery or the Japanese internments of WWII, on our nation's reputation and honor."

There was never much danger that any country would democratically go Communist, but that is not the point. The Communists did not want a mass party that took part in elections by and large. They wanted a loyal cadre that would await Liberation - and those cadres went from tiny to mass parties in a very short space of time in many places like China and Yugoslavia. However if you measure the danger solely through electoral success you might be right. If you measure it in terms of betraying America - handing the A-Bomb over to Stalin, working to defeat American foreign policies, bringing about a defeat in Vietnam, then the Communists were a danger. The KKK never won a Federal election either but their influence on America was still malign.

I do not see that MacArtney was much of an over reaction myself. A few lives were disrupted. The danger was worth it in my opinion. After all, the HUAC was set up to investigate Nazis in America. Who cares about those "victims"?

Posted by Susan | July 8, 2007 3:07 PM:"Isn't it "funny" that the ones who know what they are talking about don't agree to the US policies in the Middle East?"

Posted by Susan | July 8, 2007 3:07 PM:"Doesn't that tell you something?"

If by those "who know what they are talking about" you mean academics, then it is not funny. American academia has been in violent opposition to America since the 1960s - as can be seen by little things like the fact that one of the things that Anthropologists are professionally forbidden to do is work with the American government. Not to work with the USSR I notice. But have you asked the oil men, business people and so on who also have a long experience in the Middle East? Daniel Pipes wrote the textbook on spoken Egyptian but somehow I don't think he objects that much except that it is too weak. Widen your circle of information.

Posted by HeiGou | July 9, 2007 4:45 AM