Ross Douthat makes a point not unlike the point I made here. Much as I enjoy Ron Paul’s red-meat isolationism, the chances that such a view will actuall carry the day are slim to none. With Romney, Guliani, and McCain all trying to out-hawk each other, it would be great if the realist-internationalist school of thought was represented in the current debate. Unfortunately, Chuck Hagel seems more interested in playing will-he-or-won’t-he with the press than making substantive contributions to the current debate.
"Man is but a reed, the most feeble thing in nature, but he is a thinking reed" – Blaise Pascal
4 responses to “Wanted: realists”
-
Lee, the isolationists are the realists.
Those who are called that but in fact support a much more interventionist policy appeal to phony arguments about US interests and security needs in the same class as those used by the neocons even now to justify more, not less, US aggession in the Middle East.
A very long time ago Cap Weinberger at the Oxford Union said there is no place so far away and no conflict so insignificant that the US does not have vital interests engaged there.
Crackpot realism like that is all there is out there, going under the name “realism,” nowadays.
You are right, of course, in supposing there is no chance isolationism (or its near cousin, the left’s anti-interventionism) will prevail until and unless the US suffers many more very costly failures due to the relentless commitment of the establishment to global military and political interventionism.
That doesn’t make it wrong to think isolationism is right and is what we need.
The Fox insists the grapes are sour to console himself because he cannot reach them.
As for me, I prefer not to nod and smile at politics and policies I consider foolish, disastrous, or criminal merely because I cannot overcome them.
-
I dunno – I’m definitely closer to the isolationists, but I would happily trade a Chuck Hagel for a McCain or Giuliani, for the sake of moving the country a few inches in the right direction. That doesn’t mean that I agree with it, but I still think it’s possible to rank relative evils. I mean, it’s not like I’m contemplating actually voting for any of these guys! 😉
-
Well, that’s true.
But don’t be too sure a GOP pseudo-anti-warrior will do very much good. Nor a Democrat, for that matter.
A Democrat pseudo-anti-warrior would probably not invade Iran and would probably get us slowly, mostly, out of Iraq. But he would certainly not withdraw all our forces to the Western hemisphere, above the equator; or even from the Middle East, and he might invade Darfur to end “genocide.”
A GOP pseudo-anti-warrior like Hagel (why would you name Rudy?) would probably not invade Iran and would (one hopes) probably get us slowly, mostly, out of Iraq. But he would certainly not withdraw all our forces to the Western hemisphere, above the equator; or even from the Middle East, and he might invade Venezuela to protect the property of American capitalists.
Ron Paul is the real deal. He would, given the chance and if the Congress would allow it, most likely withdraw all our forces to the Western Hemisphere, north of the equator. He would not, left to his ‘druthers, invade either Darfur or Venezuela, I think.
(Mike Gravel might do much as would Ron Paul, as regards the military side of foreign affairs. But he is nobody’s man, and has even less chance of being president than Ralph Nader.)
Dennis K and the beltway Democrat anti-interventionists would not, I fear, be as reliably non-interventionist as Ron Paul or even Mike Gravel. They are suckers for the humanitarian argument, and would go to the wall for Israel, anyway.
Too bad, eh?
Libertarian and paleocon anti-interventionists think we neither can nor ought to save the world. I agree with them. So do most Americans. But the people who own and operate America’s only mass party of the right have other ideas.
Leftish non-interventionists, on the other hand, still think we can and should save the world. But not via so much war as the people who own and operate America’s only mass party of the left want.
Chuck Hagel or Rudy (?) might be better than GW and the neocon raiders, but not by much.
Even Dennis K would not be as much better as we really want.
Drat.
-
Sorry – I meant I would happily swap Hagel for either McCain or Giuliani. Giuliani is for me probably the least desirable GOP candidate: pro-war, pro-torture and pro-authoritarian.
And, even though it would fall well short of my ideal, I wouldn’t sneeze at a candidate kept us out of war with Iran and extricated us from Iraq. At this point even that is nigh-utopian.
A Thinking Reed 
Leave a reply to Lee Cancel reply