| From | Message |
John
Guest
5/15/2002
02:01:30
|
 Subject: Foreign Policy
IP: Logged
Message:
What kind of foreign policy should arch-conservatives promote in your view?
Here are some rough ideas (presented somewhat caustically) to promote discussion:
1-strict isolationism: Perhaps send troops to defend Canada or Mexico if they are attacked by a major belligerent power, perhaps not.
2-realist imperialism: All hail the American Empire! Somewhat like status quo but not all this whining about human rights.
3-defense of Christendom: Persecute Christians will you? Meet my blade er, F-22 Raptor!
4-pragmatism: It all depends on what is going on in the world (and/or what the people of America decide) at the time.
|
Jim Kalb
Administrator
5/15/2002
11:37:58
| RE: Foreign Policy
IP: Logged
Message:
My inclination is toward pragmatic isolationism.
|
John
Guest
5/31/2002
06:52:36
| RE: Foreign Policy
IP: Logged
Message:
Hrmm...
I've been reading parts of _The Black Book of Communism_ which shows how devastating Marxist-Leninist ideology and groups were to the places that they spread to, how utterly de-humanizing and monstrous these regimes were and still are, etc. An isolationist foreign policy probably would not have been able to stop the advancement of this doctrine from taking control via elections or coup in this country without extreme measures being taken.
This leads to a question:
When should the state engage evil overseas?
When does morality come into play? Or does it ever?
|
Jim Kalb
Administrator
5/31/2002
15:19:14
| RE: Foreign Policy
IP: Logged
Message:
Communism didn't spread as a result of American isolationism though - we intervened in the First World War, which led to the establishment of the Soviet Union, and in the Second World War, which led to Soviet power in Eastern Europe and communism in China. Once communism was established I suppose helping resist its further expansion was a good idea but that seems an extraordinary situation.
|
Matteo
Guest
6/04/2002
18:28:17
| RE: Foreign Policy
IP: Logged
Message:
If it was any European nation, I would go with Defense of Christendom.
If I was in control of America I would do so. However we have been steeped in 225 years of secularism, the amount varying over the decades, and in the event of an overt Christian Champion would cause massive instability. Many liberal and moderate Christians would even be distraught at this.
Of course the reaction to events would depend on the situation. My view though is foreign policy should support Christendom and Tradition, but not in anyway exercise Imperialist tendecies.
|
John
Guest
6/04/2002
19:34:34
| RE: Foreign Policy
IP: Logged
Message:
"an extraordinary situation"
Yeah, that's true but where does one draw the line between an extraordinary situation and an irrelevant one?
|
John
Guest
6/04/2002
19:41:26
| RE: Foreign Policy
IP: Logged
Message:
Matteo:
I tend towards that as well, especially since nearly all of the European powers have stopped defending Christians in other lands.
The British: Protestants
The French & Italians: Catholics
The Russians: Orthodox
|
Dave Anatagonism
Guest
6/23/2002
01:23:42
| RE: Foreign Policy
IP: Logged
Message:
The problem with this discussion is that it has completely ahistorical concept of the rise of the nation-state and foreign policy. The Nation state as a political entity arose with the development of capital: a development that was based on the colonisation of the Americas. This reveals a simple logic: nation-states are defined by the internal and external logics of power they find themselves in. One can not pick foreign polcies out of a hat.
The Nation states of the global North can not brake away from Empire ( as defined by Negri and Hardt in "Empire) because they rest on the matrix of economic and cultural production of global capital ( as unstable as these foundations are).
But i guess when you abscribe to such an ideological (recomend Anarchy : A journal of desire armed 's critique of ideology) view of the world like the Tradition you can postulate any old crap that you want
|
John
Guest
6/23/2002
05:04:33
| RE: Foreign Policy
IP: Logged
Message:
Oh, I know my foriegn policy ramblings in this thread are somewhat meaningless. But I was fishing for the opinions of people that frequent this board & weblog and expressing my own, perhaps, futile hopes and desires.
Foreign policies are drawn out of contexts, of course; but in this age of "empire", American power is pretty much, well, powerful. And given this luxury of power particular visions for its use can be, and have been, developed. While not fully independant of context, action, potentially unpredictable, within context is possible once possible goods are defined. Context does provide multiple possible responses but some degree of choice of these responses is possible. And in today's context, I believe it would be possible, and desirable to protect Christian minorities around the globe. Perhaps under the rubric of "religious freedom". But in another context, I might want to defend the Protectorate of the Great Lakes from the Caliphate of Chicago. I guess what I'm saying is that this discussion isn't purely ideological in the first place.
In any case, "empire" or whatnot could easily crumble to bits just like its counterpart "the end of history" given the right conditions (asteroids, nuclear war, unforseen economic crises, etc).
|