Tuesday, February 21, 2006
The Debate Goes On ...
My thanks to all of the posters for an interesting discussion on yesterday's column.
If I might "single out" three posters and comments raised ...
David Billington's introduction of the time factor as a determinant is one I hadn't really thought about other than in the context of revolutionary vs. evolutionary change in promoting democracy--and the paradigm presented is quite useful in remembering that foreign policy positions do not exist in "the abstract" but a real world defined by the passage of time.
James Poulos, via Postmodern Conservative, introduces some new "subspecies":
"Unscrupulous neocon"--. The policy type that favors the evangelical spread of freedom and democracy, to the point of manufacturing it under artificial conditions ...
"Ulterior idealist"--. The policy type for which idealism is a vehicle for ulterior motives that place geostrategy or international capital as ends and democracy as means ...
"Unitarian evangelist"--. This type, which is sometimes called "neoliberal" and sometimes "neoconservative," understands global strategy, global capital, and global freedom as a three-in-one trinity that should guide American policy in self-reinforcing ways. ... For the "unitarian evangelist," risks of civil war or backsliding -- that is, temporary policy failure -- are part of the great game, worth taking because the stakes are not only high but catholically so.
Tony Foresta, the "Cynic" and some others raise points about relevance. Does this seemingly endless debate about labels, schools of thought, foreign policy orientations really matter?
If I might "single out" three posters and comments raised ...
David Billington's introduction of the time factor as a determinant is one I hadn't really thought about other than in the context of revolutionary vs. evolutionary change in promoting democracy--and the paradigm presented is quite useful in remembering that foreign policy positions do not exist in "the abstract" but a real world defined by the passage of time.
James Poulos, via Postmodern Conservative, introduces some new "subspecies":
"Unscrupulous neocon"--. The policy type that favors the evangelical spread of freedom and democracy, to the point of manufacturing it under artificial conditions ...
"Ulterior idealist"--. The policy type for which idealism is a vehicle for ulterior motives that place geostrategy or international capital as ends and democracy as means ...
"Unitarian evangelist"--. This type, which is sometimes called "neoliberal" and sometimes "neoconservative," understands global strategy, global capital, and global freedom as a three-in-one trinity that should guide American policy in self-reinforcing ways. ... For the "unitarian evangelist," risks of civil war or backsliding -- that is, temporary policy failure -- are part of the great game, worth taking because the stakes are not only high but catholically so.
Tony Foresta, the "Cynic" and some others raise points about relevance. Does this seemingly endless debate about labels, schools of thought, foreign policy orientations really matter?
