Pretty good piece by Wright in NYT on "progressive realism"
Sunday, July 16, 2006 at 11:10AM An American Foreign Policy That Both Realists and Idealists Should Fall in Love With.
It rolls for the first chunk, when Wright is describing the broad outlines of progressive realism as a bridge between idealism and realism, but then it gets bogged down in some old-think on turning to the UN as the ultimate answer. Wright's earlier points about faith in markets should have led him to promote the notion of more competition--thus new rules and new institutions rather than tired formulas of UN-this and arms control-that.
Still, good piece overall. I would gladly call myself a progressive realist. That label certainly beats Republican versus Democrat, or Wilsonian versus Kissingerian, or Idealist versus realist. And that's Wright's main point: the old dichotomies get you nowhere.
Reader Comments (3)
Basically agree. Wright doesn't recognize the security transaction re: collective good that we already conduct with the world: they fund our overspending, refuse to gear up defense-wise, and basically defer to us on military interventions. Much power and much responsibility in that role. Recognized for both, we can shape much of the world to our liking. Viewed only within realist prism, then we get fearful of "risers," instead husband our resources, and refuse to open dialogue with those who want to become part of decision-making regarding our use of force.
Not UN, just the big economies. That's why I point to G-8-getting-to-20 vice UN.
Re the article "An American Foreign Policy That Both Realists and Idealists Should Fall in Love With"
It seems like a neo-conservative piece to me. There are some different nuances of what to do, but the understanding base is the same, the motivations are the same as the neoconservatives.
I'll explain what I mean - the tone of the piece is about elitists doing what is best for everyone with a global outlook. That makes the writer just as dangerous as a neoconservative.
The problem we are having isn't that we don't have enough rich people or elite media types or people who think they know better than everyone else what to do. The problem is we have too many, and they are outdated. We are at a real changing point in history. The invention of the firearm meant the inevitable end of feudal Europe, because it made any peasant equal in raw destructive power to a lord or baron. Now, the revolution in information and weapons technology enables any small group or disaffected individual to have a large destructive capability, and will lead to the end of our current system of privileges, the current "haves" and "have nots". The current social "have nots" have become suddenly "haves" in the realm of power and war, and the social system is not adjusting which is what is creating the chaos.
Bin Laden used a few guys with box cutters, but he also used the information revolution and he made himself equal in power to the ultimate exclusive traditional "haves", the Pentagon. A little country like Iraq defeated America at war, a couple of disaffected kids at Columbine destroyed a school's heart for years, a single angry man terrorized Washington as a sniper, a few Hezbollah guerillas can terrorize Isreal with all of its firepower and billions of dollars of weapons.
The solution to these kinds of problems comes when the social system reflects the realities of power, when for example every disaffected kid in school gets as much attention and resources as the cheerleaders, when an angry outcast man gets counseling and help and concern, when Islam gets equal access to world respect and a place in the dialogue. They will get these things not because people will suddenly become nice and tolerant, but out of necessity because they have now the power to do great damage.
The new reality is that if there is an "in" group, than there is an "out" group, and an "out" group is just too dangerous in this world. Of course, nuclear weapons for example must in the long run proliferate to every nation on earth given enough time. We have to plan for a world like that, not try to helplessly avoid change. The majority party beating up the minority will become a thing of the past, because of the sheer danger.
Modern political rights really came about as a result of the firearm making the peasant as strong as a lord. The firearm is the basis for our traditional statement of political equality, every man is equal to every other man, it reflects the physical power equation that existed. The system we are entering is greater than that, it is a system of equality of the individual to the group, not one man equal to another man, but every man equal to all of society. This is a good thing, a great thing, a thing that after the dust settles will be the next great advance of mankind. Compassion, rights, fairness, all of these things we give lip service to now will be enforced in a much more serious manner, all of our survival will depend not on the good graces of the majority, but the good graces of every single member of society.
No benevolent elitist can give this to us, because the existence of an elitist or an elitist group is dangerous to all of us (an "in" group creates an "out" group). That's why this guy's progressive elitism is just as dangerous as neoconservatism.
Wright's piece is pretty good, but not great. Rather than being about 'the world', it is more 'about the States' in the sense that its primary objective is to help the Democrats regain credibility on security/foreign policy issues. On that account, I think the 2003 Asmus-report is more interesting and productive with its explicit analysis of the need for a proactive, rather than reactive, agenda.