Adam's Apple
Senior Member
- Apr 25, 2004
- 4,092
- 449
- 48
Liberalism's Dilemma
By Carroll Andrew Morse for Tech Central Station
Published 06/16/2005
Excerpts from article:
Liberalism has been unable to put together a program for engaging the world of failed and repressive states -- the world that spawns modern terrorism -- because liberalism has not come to terms with, or perhaps even accepted, the limitations of its Wilsonian principles. Despite the mounting historical evidence, liberals continue to insist that the theoretical illiberality of foreign intervention and administration always outweighs the actual illiberality of state-sponsored violence and repression.
The original idea behind liberalism -- freeing the individual from being suffocated by traditional institutions -- has fallen to a distant third amongst liberal priorities. Defending the sovereignty of other states and strengthening supranational institutions take priority over protecting the lives and rights of individuals. The supposed enemy of liberalism, President George W. Bush, gives liberal ideals a higher place in his international decision making than most liberals do. (As Beinart notes, President Bill Clinton did undertake a war in Kosovo, "without U.N. backing in response to internal events in a sovereign country", in contravention of Wilsonian principles, but this never evolved into a liberal doctrine that could be applied to future situations.)
As long as liberals cling to the belief that advancing liberal ends and defending the absolute power of indigenous governments are one an the same, deference to government authority will force liberals to retreat from violent conflicts -- like state sponsored campaigns of terrorism -- that do not involve conventional interstate warfare. The result is the liberal movement that exists today, a movement disengaged from foreign affairs because it is unwilling to confront the conflicting nature of its priorities.
The problem is that the front lines of the war on terrorism -- state sponsors of terrorism like Syria and Iran, and Middle Eastern autocracies like Saudi Arabia and Egypt -- are not places controlled by governments that are open to being changed by development aid. A liberal program for smothering terrorism with nation building cannot begin until liberals sign on to a plan for deposing regimes that view the creation of liberal institutions as a threat to their power. Liberals who remain absolutist in their Wilsonian faith will never get their opportunity to prove they are the better nation builders, unless they believe they can talk terrorist sponsoring states into abandoning violence for political gain -- the attitude of the softs that Beinart rejects -- or they wait for another attack on America that justifies immediate action against a regime harboring terrorists, or they pursue a Carterite policy of ignoring enemies and fight a war on terrorism solely against allies willing to accept aid.
for full article:
http://www.techcentralstation.com/061605B.html
By Carroll Andrew Morse for Tech Central Station
Published 06/16/2005
Excerpts from article:
Liberalism has been unable to put together a program for engaging the world of failed and repressive states -- the world that spawns modern terrorism -- because liberalism has not come to terms with, or perhaps even accepted, the limitations of its Wilsonian principles. Despite the mounting historical evidence, liberals continue to insist that the theoretical illiberality of foreign intervention and administration always outweighs the actual illiberality of state-sponsored violence and repression.
The original idea behind liberalism -- freeing the individual from being suffocated by traditional institutions -- has fallen to a distant third amongst liberal priorities. Defending the sovereignty of other states and strengthening supranational institutions take priority over protecting the lives and rights of individuals. The supposed enemy of liberalism, President George W. Bush, gives liberal ideals a higher place in his international decision making than most liberals do. (As Beinart notes, President Bill Clinton did undertake a war in Kosovo, "without U.N. backing in response to internal events in a sovereign country", in contravention of Wilsonian principles, but this never evolved into a liberal doctrine that could be applied to future situations.)
As long as liberals cling to the belief that advancing liberal ends and defending the absolute power of indigenous governments are one an the same, deference to government authority will force liberals to retreat from violent conflicts -- like state sponsored campaigns of terrorism -- that do not involve conventional interstate warfare. The result is the liberal movement that exists today, a movement disengaged from foreign affairs because it is unwilling to confront the conflicting nature of its priorities.
The problem is that the front lines of the war on terrorism -- state sponsors of terrorism like Syria and Iran, and Middle Eastern autocracies like Saudi Arabia and Egypt -- are not places controlled by governments that are open to being changed by development aid. A liberal program for smothering terrorism with nation building cannot begin until liberals sign on to a plan for deposing regimes that view the creation of liberal institutions as a threat to their power. Liberals who remain absolutist in their Wilsonian faith will never get their opportunity to prove they are the better nation builders, unless they believe they can talk terrorist sponsoring states into abandoning violence for political gain -- the attitude of the softs that Beinart rejects -- or they wait for another attack on America that justifies immediate action against a regime harboring terrorists, or they pursue a Carterite policy of ignoring enemies and fight a war on terrorism solely against allies willing to accept aid.
for full article:
http://www.techcentralstation.com/061605B.html
