'Progressive realism' in Iraq and in the future
Another attempt to merge realism with idealism/liberalism:
The NY Times has an article by Robert Wright, wherein he suggests that "progressive realism" is the philosophy that liberals might want to try out, now that internvention in Iraq hasn't turned out too well. We still want to save the world, he writes, but we need to be a bit more... realistic... about it.
That's quite a bit down the road from realism in the IR sense, but Wright isn't the first to attempt such a move. As Daniel Drezner points out, Francis Fukuyama - a former neoconservative - outlined a similar foreign policy outlook in his latest book, published earlier this year. Fukuyama, however, preferred to term his concept "realistic Wilsonianism."
Basically, progressive realism comes down to adding morals to realism, while realistic Wilsonianism could be described as constraining morals with some realism. The degree one wants to be moral, or to exercise realism, is hard to quantify, so it all pretty much becomes gray area. Each crisis must be evaluated on the basis of its own unique circumstances.
The bumper-sticker titles suggested for the two perspectives sound appealing, but they are actually rather vague. They will need to be defined further before people can gather under the respective banners and actually agree on a course of action for a specific situation.
What does seem certain, though, is that neoconservative foreign policy seems to be behind us. For the latest evidence, check out what Larry Diamond at Foreignaffairs.org - who worked in the Coalition Provisional Authority in 2004 - has to say. (Note: Diamond is not new to criticizing the administration's execution of the war, but his comments do underscore how difficult the nation-building exercise has become.)
It is hard for me to remember a time when I have felt that the United States was so hopelessly, brutally, and thoroughly trapped in a thankless policy. However, since despair is not a policy option, we are compelled to continue the search for practical options.
Also, for the record, Foreign Affairs' entire roundtable seems to agree that Iraq is in some form fo civil war. And they started discussions before this report was released - the United Nations reporting more than 3,000 Iraqi civilian deaths in June.
End note: I realized I got off subject toward the end, veering quite away from realism vs. idealism. And no, neoconservatism is not the same as idealism, just as realism is usually not isolationism. But it is important to see how real-world foreign policy shifts match up with the speculation of academics.
The NY Times has an article by Robert Wright, wherein he suggests that "progressive realism" is the philosophy that liberals might want to try out, now that internvention in Iraq hasn't turned out too well. We still want to save the world, he writes, but we need to be a bit more... realistic... about it.
That's quite a bit down the road from realism in the IR sense, but Wright isn't the first to attempt such a move. As Daniel Drezner points out, Francis Fukuyama - a former neoconservative - outlined a similar foreign policy outlook in his latest book, published earlier this year. Fukuyama, however, preferred to term his concept "realistic Wilsonianism."
Basically, progressive realism comes down to adding morals to realism, while realistic Wilsonianism could be described as constraining morals with some realism. The degree one wants to be moral, or to exercise realism, is hard to quantify, so it all pretty much becomes gray area. Each crisis must be evaluated on the basis of its own unique circumstances.
The bumper-sticker titles suggested for the two perspectives sound appealing, but they are actually rather vague. They will need to be defined further before people can gather under the respective banners and actually agree on a course of action for a specific situation.
What does seem certain, though, is that neoconservative foreign policy seems to be behind us. For the latest evidence, check out what Larry Diamond at Foreignaffairs.org - who worked in the Coalition Provisional Authority in 2004 - has to say. (Note: Diamond is not new to criticizing the administration's execution of the war, but his comments do underscore how difficult the nation-building exercise has become.)
It is hard for me to remember a time when I have felt that the United States was so hopelessly, brutally, and thoroughly trapped in a thankless policy. However, since despair is not a policy option, we are compelled to continue the search for practical options.
Also, for the record, Foreign Affairs' entire roundtable seems to agree that Iraq is in some form fo civil war. And they started discussions before this report was released - the United Nations reporting more than 3,000 Iraqi civilian deaths in June.
End note: I realized I got off subject toward the end, veering quite away from realism vs. idealism. And no, neoconservatism is not the same as idealism, just as realism is usually not isolationism. But it is important to see how real-world foreign policy shifts match up with the speculation of academics.
posted by bp at
5:33 PM
3 Comments:
Have you seen this book? The Good Fight: Why Liberals and Only Liberals Can Win the War on Terror by Peter Beinart. I've heard great things about it (not time to read it yet), but it has a bone to pick w/ the term "progressive".
By
Miguel Centellas, at 11:04 AM
I haven't read it, but it looks to be worth checking out.
I'm not a huge fan of "progressive" myself, but "liberal" has turned into a slur as far as American politics go. Ed Schultz, the liberal talk radio guy, exclusively says "lefty."
By
bp, at 4:38 PM
I think it's important to bring the word Liberal (capital "L") back. I think a lot of people who call themselves liberals really aren't liberals (IMHO). In part, because they emphasize some liberties, while encouraging massive government intervention in many areas. I consider myself a liberal hawk, in the tradition of Madison, J.S.Mill. For them, the greatest threat to individual liberty came from the state.
By
Miguel Centellas, at 11:17 AM
Post a Comment
<< Home