[p] Morality vs RealPolitik

[Rorschach]

Allow me to run something past you before I pose my question(s)...

The Thomas Jefferson Hour recently rebroadcast an eerily prophetic "out of character" episode from February 2003, just before the Iraq War kicked off. Scholar Clay Jenkinson, in back-commenting on the episode, mentions this quote:


We have about 50% of the world's wealth, but only 6.3% of its population. ... In this situation, we cannot fail to be the object of envy and resentment. Our real task in the coming period is to devise a pattern of relationships which will permit us to maintain this position of disparity. ... To do so, we will have to dispense with all sentimentality and day-dreaming; and our attention will have to be concentrated everywhere on our immediate national objectives. ... We should cease to talk about vague and ... unreal objectives such as human rights, the raising of the living standards, and democratization. The day is not far off when we are going to have to deal in straight power concepts. The less we are then hampered by idealistic slogans, the better.
--- George Kennan on Policy Planning
Policy Planning Study 23, Foreign Relations of the United States , 1948

For those who don't know who George Kennan was:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_F._Kennan
He essentially invented the Truman Doctrine, and Containment policies towards the Soviets.

Do you, learned friends, feel that the United States today (pick one or add your own)
a) Is following this policy ruthlessly, under a veneer of beneficence ?
b) Avoids this thinking altogether?
c) Tries to avoid it, but ends up there regardless?
d) Doesn't think like this, but should be doing so, the heck with Jeffersonian Democracy?
e) Doesn't have a policy, so much as ravenous interests, which drive us to that end regardless of moral qualms?

Discuss please...

If you need more info from Mr. Jefferson via his avatar:
http://www.jeffersonhour.org/page/index/
Mr. Jenkinson is an Academic, and fairly liberal himself. But he plays Jefferson utterly straight "as written" , so to speak. So if you wish to understand at least half of the Founding Philosophy of this country (the other half being Hamilton's) its worth a regular listen.
They even read one of my questions on air last year, on Show #621 "Possessions".

[Nate Train]

I'll go with C


I think, generally, we do our best to protect our international interests while trying not to step on any toes. The problem is, the other nations of the world have such big toes. I wouldn't necessarily say this is true in all cases, though.

[Stu]

I don't think we have maintained the level of discourse among civic leaders required to a) develop a clear, sustainable, flexible set of objectives designed to maintain our position in the world, or to b) understand how to use that position to develop criteria for determing where we can or should apply influence for meaningful change.

We have corporations and think tanks capable of doing both those things, but we do not have the will as a collective body of people to direct our attention to a long-term goal. We can't even decide not to drive unnecessary trucks when it's cearly not in our national, or even personal interest to do so.

Jefferson watched this pendulum swing in his lifetime. During the revolution, he was called on to use his analytical skills (there were no think tanks then) to help pull people together in the interest of the new country. He became disillusioned as the country prospered and his peers' and sometimes relatives' self-interests became more and more pronounced. He understood how real power was the foundation which all other altruistic concerns rested, but also took very seriously the idea of the Enlightenment elevating all mankind. That wasn't simply feel-good rhetoric.

I don't see that power and compassion are incompatable--in fact, they seem impossible to separate. And I hear authoritative voices back this position up time and time again--from the Brookings Institute, or various leadership or business councils. Never much straight, clear talk from politicians. Yes--of course--I know that would be one of the seven signs. However--it may take a country bold enough to dispense with the bs to retain any tenuous control of the world dynamic in the upcoming difficult times. I certainly would not want to live in a fascist state, but I'm concerned that America does not have the resources even to maintain the status quo, much less to become more ruthless.

[Pilgrim]

Stu makes pretty mouth sounds!


I think this is a damned if you do kinda scenario. If we are overly compassionate then the prolls start to exploit it, and resent it.

If we're overly brutal then they start to resist, get bitter, get jihady...

Both policies have been tried in the past by different empires, and both have failed.

The inevitable truth of the human condition is we'll have to either get mean enough to remove (completely and forever) other threats, or become a push over and be willing to give up our advantage for the sill "But they Like us!" advantage.


The real trick is to be brutal, and mean, and willing to wipe them all out... while appearing to be compassionate and nice...

I'm not too worried, the zombies are coming to kill us all in a Global Warming fueled orgy of blood and guts, so it doesn't really matter, but that's the trick, give the hand with one hand and the boot with the other.

[mruch89]

I think the answer is E. The US, and most of the so-called first world nations, due to the constraints of Representative democracy in the era of the Global Internet and Global economy, just cannot avoid the situational ethics of "need gas for our SUV's, so take over a middle eastern country, damn the consequences". I find it humorous that the Dimmycrats are so flustered over who voted for the war and who didn't. Let's face it, when it started this was a very popular war, very few people spoke up and said, hmm. this might not work. I'm one of those folks who said, hell yeah let's do it, although I was mainly backing it in the hopes that the price of gas would fall to .10 $ a gallon. I think it would take a stronger President, and political process than we have to really step up and say: "here is our policy, this is going to work, but we have to give it time" and actually convince the voting public to stay the course for a long enough time for any long term strategy to work. I think the last president we had who could do that was Reagan. I'm not sure any President could maintain a long term strategy that results in bad publicity given the ADD like mentality of the electorate in our present over saturated media climate.

[newdigitalblue]

I'd have to agree with mruch. About the war at least. When the idea of invading Iraq came up most of the voting agienst it came from the UN. Other countries trying to tell the US to not do it. Of course a lot of people took offense to this and I believe that consituted to those people who would have normally protested such an action to be unusually quite about it. And the matter of the fact is, the house or the senet did not attempt to stop the invasion from happening. If it was because of self intrest or not is really yet to be seen, though evidance could prove either way at this moment. And to be honest we may never really know.

IMO popularity dropped dramaticly when the one tatic that works agienst the US and I would have to say 90% of other countries is sustained gorilla warfare. It's turning more into of if you can't beat us all you have to do is outlast us.

But back to the original point, special intrests groups and politics has been arround for a long time, and will continue to happen because of a small basic equation Votes needs face time face time needs money money equals votes. It's been a long time since we've seen a poor political canidate for many importanat offices. In the end that is what may do us in.

[MyMyst8k]

"Dance, Monkeys, Dance" (http://iacs5.ucsd.edu/~pbang/dance_monkeys.htm)

[Rorschach]

"Dance, Monkeys, Dance" (http://iacs5.ucsd.edu/~pbang/dance_monkeys.htm)

Sooo...Option (F) -> Fling Poop
:D

[DoomedToRepeatIt]

"Dance, Monkeys, Dance" (http://iacs5.ucsd.edu/~pbang/dance_monkeys.htm)


Funny 'cause its true.