This is my personal blog. On it, I propose to discuss philosophy, diplomacy, military, politics, religion, technology, friends, family, and anything else interesting, stimulating, and in good taste.
jmc
This is my personal blog. On it, I propose to discuss philosophy, diplomacy, military, politics, religion, technology, friends, family, and anything else interesting, stimulating, and in good taste.
jmc
What is the first topic of intellectual debate dear moderator? Your public needs its collective mind stimulated and its collective conscious roused!
Well, in a world of zealotry, should our country’s foreign policy be governed by a desire to crusade “our values” or be pragmatic about “our spheres of influence?”
Ah, a slippery question indeed. For if we believe those who argue against relativism then to argue that pragmatism is best is to – in fact – dilute one’s own sense of truth and essential truth such that it may be. While I find something attractive in the argument that relativism can be a slippery slope (yes it is raining in Maryland today) – I – as a sociologist – can be little else than aware that the imposition of “our” values on others throughout the world is nothing less than domination. There has to be a line somewhere in the middle – when it comes to basic human rights (to not be hungry, to be housed, to not be exploited, to not suffer sexual or physical violence, to be free to live) we should exercise influence – but the form of government, the religious traditions, the cultural practices of a people should be left alone. I don’t want a whole world that looks like America.
Pragmatism does not equate to relativism. It simply implies a consideration of the means available to accomplish national (and international) objectives.
For me, the weakness in the “crusader” position is that it puts “ends” on a very high pedestal and seldom considers the “means” (or costs) of accomplishing those “ends.”
The proliferation of human rights is a vary laudable–even desireable–goal, but our repeated failure to consider the “means/costs” over the last century to the current day has resulted in: 1) our failure to accomplish this proliferation consistently; 2) our failure to accomplish anything at all in “dark” places like the Sudan; and 3) a dilution of our ability to accomplish other important goals.
For example, giving credit for a moment to the administration’s position that the invasion of Iraq was necessary to create a “beacon of democracy” in the Middle East from which it might proliferate to its neighbors, the administration patently failed to correctly consider and marshal the means necessary.
For all our vaunted “love” of Democracy, we’re on the verge of trading a dictatorship for a failed state. As evil as Saddam was, democracy is very unlikely to proliferate from what is left of Iraq now.