Now is no time to go all wobbly

OP-ED: They Can Only Go So Far, By Francis Fukuyama, Washington Post, August 24, 2008; Page B01

Very nice piece by Fukuyama.

Good for the wobblies that seem to be infecting so many thinkers right now.

(Thanks: Jarrod Myrick)

Comments

[VoteWithTroops.com]

These arguments make a lot of sense, but, the complication comes with an acceptance of the Profit Principle (to advance the global middle class) at the cost of the Freedom Principle (which allows self rule by that same, growing global middle class). Barnett believes, eventually, that same more-prosperous global middle class will achieve the self rule all humans desire. The path to liberation in oppressive but capitalistic nations may still require violent, French Revolution type struggles against autocratic oppressors, no matter their "national" religion. As Americans, we still have the moral dilema of when to support the Profit Principle instead of the Freedom Principle (i.e. Georgia, Ukraine, Poland, Taiwan, etc.). As Barnett says, Foreign Direct Investment is a coward and stability is the key factor, not self rule by the population. For Americans, politically, the question is one of a moral foreign policy for our government and private sectors (military isolationism or defense of democratic allies). It seems Barnett's position is stability for globalization and globalization for stability at the cost of a strong, correct, freedom-based moral stance in every case. That bothers some of us about Tom's doctrine because most people would rather be free than wealthy (while we understand most people would rather be "ruled over" than starved, ill, unjustly imprisoned or victims of death squads). The moral dilema remains (hoping for Tom's take on this issue).

[stuart abrams]

Agreed - good piece. However, I note his comment about the fear that Georgia won't be the last former Soviet Republic to be targeted by Russia. Can't we turn this to around to make Russian nationalism something we can use to our advantage? I agree with Fukuyama that Islamic radicalism is the real ideological danger, and the center of that war is in Afghanistan, which is spilling over into Pakistan. But it is highly unlikely to end there. Looking forward, I think the future battleground is in "The 'Stans" - the former Soviet Republics of Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan, and Uzbekistan - where the governments are corrupt and illegitimate and the potential for Islamic radicalism is enormous. Why not take advantage of Russia's desire to extend its influence in the former Soviet Union to help us carry on the long war against radical Islam?

[Louis Heberlein]

Russia had Czars and elite power groups living separately from the general public's social and economic lives. They did try to update their country based on their interpretations of Europe's useful modernizations. But because they were separate they felt the need for periodic 'safe' military ventures to show the people their purpose. Failures of safe ventures against an emerging Japan, and then against an upstart (and apparently isolated) German power led to the permanent end of Czar era.

The Chinese worshipped the Emperors as connected to the gods or some external spirit and rule set. However, the people also felt they could dump and kill emperors whose project/war failures indicated the emperor had lost the favor of those gods.

When any people feel they are not part of the critical decision process of a nation they are less likely to accept flaws in results, or to monitor the process for necessary corrections and updates. They just dump the loser boss.

Adam Smith noted in his classic 1776 work how England had survived a series of crises from catastrophic fire, economic problems and difficult wars because the public could participate in government and economic decisions. The richer and more powerful top dawg states of Spain and France failed mostly because their elite kept themselves separate from the public in deciding critical matters.

It just takes one spark to set the wood shavings trash on fire and burn the place down.

[Anonymous]

VWT: false dichotomy. does Tom have to say it 'til he's blue in the face? try democracy without mature markets and middle class and you get Yeltsin's kleptocracy or the current political messes in Iraq and Afghanistan. you call those moral?

develop mature markets and middle class first and you eventually get democracy in the bargain.

[Bill C.]

"Bullies can still throw their weight around."

This, as it relates to actions by the United States -- not by the authoritarian regimes -- should this be seen as the crux of the problem?

To wit:

a. By throwing its weight around post-the Cold War, in the areas of the former Soviet sphere of influence, did the United States not fan the flames of Russian nationalism? And

b. By throwing its weight around post-the Cold War, in the Islamic homelands, did the United States not fan the flames of "the real ideological danger:" Islamic Radicalism?

Thus, should "bullying" by the United States not be seen as the root cause of all these problems -- and the basis for the requirement to have to deal with a two-front (conventional and unconventional) war contingency?

[stuart abrams]

Sean-Getting a little off point, but I'll chime in. I don't think it's quite that easy. For example, my hunch is that China will never have a form of government that we would consider "democratic" in Anglo-American terms. However, that doesn't mean that China can't be a country that we can't coexist with very comfortably. I think the point is that global capitalism inevitably promotes the "rule sets" (not one of my favorite of Barnett's terms) that are associated with the values that we view as positive attributes of a democracy: a legal system that is transparent and predictable; widespread access to information; freedom of movement; a mechanism for removing corrupt and incompetent government officials; mass education; gender equality in the workplace; and the ability for new people to have access to higher levels of political or economic power based on ability rather than accidents of birth. I think globalization also promotes freedom of religion because it inevitably causes diverse groups to come in contact with each other and ultimately the only way of dealing with that is to take religion out of the political sphere. One of Marx's failings was in treating capitalism as a "one size fits all" kind of system; in fact, its strength is its flexibility and ability to thrive in a wide variety of environments. However, the unifying characteristic is that it also inevitably promotes certain core values that most people, except for the Al Qaedas of the world, consider positive.

[VoteWithTroops.com]

I get your point, Sean - capitalization and FDI is the best way to democratization. But you imply that the "current political messes in Iraq and Afghanistan" are not moral. Many people believe that America's form of government is corrupt and immoral too, and they can make a strong case for that belief.

But Barnett supported Bush's "big bang" liberation of Iraq and I trust he (and you) also supported retaliation against the Taliban and Al-Qaeada in Afghanistan.

Was Barnett's support of Bush's preemptive strike against, and liberation of, Iraq then solely motivated by a misjudged need for self defense of the USA? Apparently so, if we follow your argument to it's conclusion.

Anybody who does not support the removal of a mass grave filling, Palestinian suicide bomber financing, UN Resolution violating, 1991 cease fire agreement violating thug like Saddam Hussein needs a moral recalibration, in my humble opinion. You don't disagree I trust.

Obviously, capitalization and FDI is the best way to democratization. But thugs don't care, just ask Georgians, North Koreans, Cubans, etc. Sometimes we need to use carrots and other times we need to use sticks. But what do you base these decisions upon - morality or self interest? Are not morality and self interest one in the same?