 |
| Hmmm... I read this article early this morning and the author gives not one bit of evidence or even logic why this concept is true or even palatable. It's just verbiage much like the Styrofoam peanuts in a packing carton. |
Posted on 07/16/2006 4:11:39 AM PDT by Oshkalaboomboom
AS liberals try to articulate a post-Bush foreign policy, some are feeling a bit of cognitive dissonance.
They have always thought of themselves as idealistic, concerned with the welfare of humankind. Not for them the ruthlessly narrow focus on national self-interest of the “realist” foreign policy school. That school’s most famous practitioner, Henry Kissinger, is for many liberals a reminder of how easily the ostensible amorality of classic realism slides into immorality.
Yet idealism has lost some of its luster. Neoconservatism, whose ascendancy has scared liberals into a new round of soul-searching, seems plenty idealistic, bent on spreading democracy and human rights. Indeed, a shared idealism is what led many liberals to join neocons in supporting the Iraq war, which hasn’t turned out ideally. In retrospect, realists who were skeptical of the invasion, like Brent Scowcroft and Samuel Huntington, are looking pretty wise.
It’s an unappealing choice: chillingly clinical self-interest or dangerously naïve altruism? Fortunately, it’s a false choice. During the post-cold-war era, the security landscape has changed a lot, in some ways for the worse; witness the role of “nonstate actors” last week in India, Israel and Iraq. But this changing environment has a rarely noted upside: It’s now possible to build a foreign policy paradigm that comes close to squaring the circle — reconciling the humanitarian aims of idealists with the powerful logic of realists. And adopting this paradigm could make the chaos of the last week less common in the future.
Every paradigm needs a name, and the best name for this one is progressive realism. The label has a nice ring (Who is against progress?) and it aptly suggests bipartisan appeal. This is a realism that could attract many liberals and a progressivism that could attract some conservatives.
(Excerpt) Read more at nytimes.com ...
Carolyn
Like that of newspaper editors who publish secret defense intelligence material to sell copies, whatever the effect on the fight against people who fly planes into buildings.
This didn't make a lot of sense to me until I got to this part
(Excerpt) Read more at nytimes.com ...
Then I knew why it didn't.
Like a dull knife That just ain't cuttin Talkin loud But sayin nothin - James Brown
Who is against progress? The so-called Progressivesa are.
This is the result when idiots are taught to type.
|
| Hmmm... I read this article early this morning and the author gives not one bit of evidence or even logic why this concept is true or even palatable. It's just verbiage much like the Styrofoam peanuts in a packing carton. |
In order to understand this column, you must first assume the liberal dogma that the war in Iraq is a failure, quagmire, etc.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.