But the contradiction in Fukuyama's own analysis -- he says the Administration essentially believed two things at once (that America should change the world by force, and that democracy will always right the world on its o wn) -- leads him to get the Administration's actions wrong.I'm not sure this distinction can be oversold - the situation in Iraq is as much, if not more, a failure of action as it is a failure of ideas. But Fukuyama's disenchantment leaves him casting about for new ideas, while ignoring the need for a cogent plan of action. Sometimes you have to say it: it's the policy, stupid. And that's why, reluctantly most of the time, I consider myself a Realist.
This is because the Administration's failure to plan for the post-invasion Iraq had less to do with its ideas of democracy than with its failure to appreciate the idea and art of governance.
Wednesday, February 22, 2006
A Follow Up on Fukuyama
To continue from my previous post on F2, I thought I'd pass on, via an ObWi commenter, this response, which notes that Fukuyama is still stuck in a box of sorts:
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
15 comments:
So if you are a Realist, why the problem with torture? You are willing to consign large swaths of humanity to the meat-grinder as a matter of philosophy, so your outrage at US torture policies makes no sense to me.
And I think you are contradicting yourself further with this bit:
[T]he situation in Iraq is as much, if not more, a failure of action as it is a failure of ideas.
If the idea is wrong, which you strongly imply, there is no action that can make it work. So complaining about why the policy didn't make the Sun rise in the west this morning is nuts.
Knowing that things have to be done doesn't make me like them. And when the things done serve no discernable purpose, (do we get reliable, actionable, information through torture? Do we get more of said information than from less...forceful techniques? I'm not sold) and in fact seem to do violence to our cause, in addition to being viscerally disgusting and abhorrent. From a utilitarian point of view, it makes no sense even in the sort run. In the long run, the degradation of moral capital is even more harmful, IMO.
Even the most hardcore Realists recognize the utility of 'following rules'. Machiavelli warns against cruelty for cruelty's sake.
Further I think this: You are willing to consign large swaths of humanity to the meat-grinder as a matter of philosophy is a bit of an exageration, as well as conflating 'willingness' with 'desire'. I think a Realist foregin policy wonk would say that if they do their job correctly, they don't have to 'consign large swaths'
As to the action/idea issue, your point is well taken. However my point goes the other way, in that no idea will work if the implementation is badly flawed. Was invading Iraq a stupid idea? Well, if we're going to half-ass it, than yes, of course, but the original question is left unanswered.
A different context, but when I coach sports, I always tell the players to do whatever they are doing hard, even if they are not sure it is correct. That way if it doesn't work, we can correct it, whereas if they act unsure, we can't tell if it was because the 'play' is poorly designed, or if it was simply a failure of execution.
BTW, appreciate you engaging me on this. I know we disagree, at times, vehemantly, on these issues but there's nothing wrong with disagreements in my mind, as it will at the very least keep both of us honest.
I think a Realist foregin policy wonk would say that if they do their job correctly, they don't have to 'consign large swaths'
I think this is wrong, but I don't have time to go into it in depth, and will no doubt forget about it later. In short, I don't think a realist has any reason to care about people in other nations. A realist would only care about the nation itself, and what it can do in either a positive or negative sense for his own nation.
Overthrowing Allende and installing Pinochet is a perfect example of realpolitik at work. So was screwing the Kurds over in the 1970s. The whole Iran-Contra affair was a brilliant piece of realpolitik as well. The same goes for the School for (of?) the Americas, especially its most unsavory parts.
As for disagreeing about things: If you can't rhetorically punch your friends in the face, who can you rhetorically punch in the face?
(Of course we can't really punch each other in the face. We're on opposite sides of the country, and our arms aren't long enough.)
I think I mistook your point on 'large swaths'. I agree, I care less about non-U.S. people than I do about U.S. people. But, I think if you discount Canada I know...maybe 5? 10? overseas types. Stunning myopia, I admit.
But caring less doesn't mean caring not at all.
As for your examples, I would say that those were short-sighted examples of realpolitik at work, in part a failure of imagination that people might not like to be bullied, and might get their backs up.
Like I've said before, I lean towards realism/materialism, but not to the exclusion of idealist norms and goals. And of course your and my vision of those norms and goals probably differs a fair bit...
I think it might be helpful to point out that "realism" and "realpolitik" are not synonyms, though I understand, Icepick, that the former is often used that way, or at least as shorthand pointing in that direction.
In my mind (and you do use the word, actually), you are talking about realpolitiks (think Kissinger), whereas I suspect that Pooh, while perhaps a realist--even you, Pooh, don't put yourself firmly in that camp--is not a adherent of realpolitiks.
I'm wondering if you both my find the this post of interest, which talks about the historical realpolitik by way of the current (and past) situation of the Kurds. It might offer an interesting prism to view/approach your (already interesting) discussion.
And, Pooh, fine point of distinction, but I don't think I'd say "even" Machiavelli; I could be wrong, but that implies that you conflate Machiavelli, the man, and his views, and those presented in "The Prince." Machiavellia ended up quite slandered in history.
(vh: neurgmhg. This is my brain. This is my brain after too much time spent on the 'net.)
When I say "Machiavelli" I'm generally referring to "The Prince", it's true. I know very little about the man himself, other than to know that that work has a slight "Modest Proposal" whiff about it.
Just for fun, some info on Machiavelli ...
Odd, I've never associated 'Machiavellian' with 'corrupt'. The two often coexist to be sure, but I don't find them to be coequal in anyway.
REader, that post was why the Kurds came to mind. Otherwise I would have problably picked some more Latin American examples.
I am really too tired to keep this up, but I will admit that I am conflating realism and realpolitiks.
And Pooh, if that's all the foreign types you know, you really need to get out more! Where have you been living, a snow bank? Oh, wait a minute....
I'm probably undercounting by an order of magnitude or 3 (and I'm JKNR about the 'people I know' point anyway...)
JKNR?
Stumped.
Better make the morning coffee.
Sorry, JKNR = "Just kidding, not really", a rough equivalent of "not ha-ha funny, but strange funny."
Pooh, enough of this nonsense. When are you going to get to the important task of ripping Zeke for making yet another dumb personnel move? Personally, I think trading Penny's contract for Steve Francis is one of Zeke's top five mistakes. And I'm certain that Larry Brown taking the Knicks' job is the dumbest thing Larry's ever done.
Speaking as someone living in Orlando and a one-time Magic fan, I'd feel a lot better about the Magic grabbing Penny's expiring contract if I thought they were actually going to do something productive with the cap room.
Funny you should ask, the top post in my drafts folder is entitled "Failing Upwards with Isaiah Thomas".
Watch this space...
Pooh: Thanks. Though I think there's nothing that's going to help me attain even the slightest patina of hip, alas.
Post a Comment