Peter Beinart says the essence of liberal foreign policy is to create a situation where the United States works through institutions and does "not need to choose between isolationism and imperialism." I think that's exactly right.
« Beinart and Biddle for Leaving | Main | Halliburtinizing? »
Well-Said
03 Aug 2007 12:20 pm
Comments (11)
Link? Is this part of a larget article?
Well said, indeed. Now if we can just get him to write an entire article without using the words "Harry" or "Truman," or insinuating that everyone to the Left of him is an unwashed dope fiend, then his rehabilitation will be complete.
Mmmmh.... Pretty poorly stated, if indeed it's "exactly right": "does not need to choose" can also colloquially mean "can have both," which I suspect if not the meaning you are applauding -- though it is the one Cheney and Tancredo would endorse.
Beinart's rehabilitation will only come from quitting a job he is manifestly incompetent at - commenting on politics - and getting into a job he can actually do well - ice cream shop vendor, for instance. I, for one, think he would be fantastic saying things like, you want the chocolate sprinkles on that? In this way, he won't fall under the sway of evil influences - like the Iraqi exiles Chalabi's group fixed him up with, so soulful! - and he could rise to the top with industry and concentration, until he owned his own ice cream shop.
As a pundit and editor, however, he has demonstrated throughout his brief career a spectacular mismatch between ambition and achievement. In the world of vocational counseling, we call this a talent gap. Foreign policy is way, way beyond his capabilities. His field should be ice cream.
Hey, maybe someday we can suggest that with regard to international trade, business, and investment, we don't just have a simplistic choice between some fictional zero-trade autarky and giving away all our democratic sovereign powers of regulation (frequently called "free trade") in order to favor multinational investors and corporate chieftains.
And also, are we allowed yet to think about meetings with the freely-elected, popular, and democratic government of Venezuela, or would that make our Central Asian dissident-boiling tyrants jealous?
Re Beinart's argument that we do ""not need to choose between isolationism and imperialism."
So what does Peter think we should be -- an isolated imperialist? I think we're already there.
I'm a major booster of old-timey, one-worlder internationalism, and love talk about building global institutions, strengthening and extending the international rule of law, etc. But I have two problems with Beinart's statement here.
First, I have trouble with the notion that the "essence" of a foreign policy - liberal or otherwise - consists in the instruments used, rather than in the ultimate purposes toward which those instruments are directed. This has been a constant source of frustration to me over the past several years: the incessant debate on the liberal side about means and process, often from an abstract and theoretical point of view, combined with silence or diffidence about ends, and a failure to address the concrete challenges of our particular historical situation.
Second, Beinart's formulation contains the implication that if one doesn't work through institutions, then one has no choice but to engage in empire building or become "isolated". Surely that is a grossly false dilemma, and plays into the "isolationist" hysterics and fear-mongering of a lot of the liberal interventionists. It is entirely possible for even a country that prefers national autonomy and unilateral policy-making over participation in international institutions to nevertheless engage in healthy commerce, active cultural exchange and neighborly openness with other countries, without attempting to dominate those other countries, govern them or incorporate them into one's "orbit".
I, for one, think he would be fantastic saying things like, you want the chocolate sprinkles on that?
Evidently the new improved Beinart would say, "You don't need to choose between chocolate sprinkles and pineapple sauce. You can have both!"
Second, Beinart's formulation contains the implication that if one doesn't work through institutions, then one has no choice but to engage in empire building or become "isolated". Surely that is a grossly false dilemma, and plays into the "isolationist" hysterics and fear-mongering of a lot of the liberal interventionists.
Precisely so. "Isolationism" is just about the biggest, emptiest scare word in English today. I'd like to take a drive with Beinart to, say, the local Target. After we top off at the Lukhoil station, we can stroll down the aisles of Honduran clothes, Chinese electrical products and East European plumbing supplies, while he expounds about how America's always on the brink of isolationism. Beinart's another overpaid idiot.
The essence of Liberal foreign policy should be to protect and promote the interests of the United States of America, period. It's a big complicated world. Nations, regions, cultures and tribes allign and re-allign. There is no way to know what "institutions" will look like or where their interests will diverge from ours. Remember the Bush Doctrine? Wasn't it something about promoting democracy around the world? How come it never applied to our good friends in Saudi Arabia or even Russia and China? The Bush doctrine was not a statement of foreign policy ideals, it was a prop. It had it's designed effect. GWB got re-elected, then it was quickly forgotten. I would hope that Liberals would hold themselves to a higher standard. Simple-minded talking points repeated frequently by a pliant press might get you elected but it should not be a replacement for a real foreign policy.
Comments closed August 17, 2007.
| 
Heads in the Sand
Stop the presses!!! Someone had a sane idea. If only a lot of our elected officials did!!
Posted by Joe Klein's conscience | August 3, 2007 12:40 PM