SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Politics : Foreign Affairs Discussion Group -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: Ilaine who wrote (60817)12/9/2002 11:46:59 PM
From: FaultLine  Respond to of 281500
 
Will FL boot me if I do?

now you've really got my interest piqued... :o)

(you can always 'run it by me', I suppose, if it is that incendiary.)

--fl@imprimatur.com



To: Ilaine who wrote (60817)12/9/2002 11:55:33 PM
From: Nadine Carroll  Read Replies (2) | Respond to of 281500
 
Jonah Goldberg thinks that the Left has crippled itself with an overriding fear of hypocrisy, which it prevents it from supporting any conservative cause, even if it will aid a liberal goal, because it is done for the wrong reasons:

In my current syndicated column, I complain about the tendency among liberals to argue that no liberal end should be pursued if it might also result in achieving a conservative end — or, heaven forbid, require employing conservative means. Conservatives argue that foreign policy should be conducted out of self-interest but throughout the 1990s antiwar liberals could only find enthusiasm for conflicts which were explicitly not in our national interest. Somalia and Haiti were glorious triumphs of American foreign policy. The Gulf War was tainted because it actually aligned with American interests.

I wrote that I couldn't understand why this was the case, why it is that liberals — once champions of a simultaneously realistic and moral foreign policy — today shudder at the notion of using force if it might actually be in the national interest.

Now that I've slept on it, I have answer. I think the Left is addled by a logic-bending obsession with hypocrisy. While certainly not unknown on the right, I think liberals today put an emphasis on purity of motives and consistency of action, particularly in foreign policy, that makes them damn-near blind to reason.

nationalreview.com

I wasn't sure that I really bought this, though he certainly seemed to have a point with Amnesty International's sudden objections to being used in an anti-Saddam campaign, but then I read this paragraph by George Monbiot in the Guardian:

Two weeks ago, I argued on these pages that, while the action being planned by the US and Britain against Iraq is wholly unjust and must be resisted, it would be possible to conceive of a just war against its government, if the sole aim was to help the nation's oppressed people deliver themselves from dictatorship, if the states prosecuting that war were not themselves the principal sources of global violence and had nothing to gain from invasion, and if the non-violent means of achieving the same outcome had first been exhausted.
guardian.co.uk

What do we have here but purity of motive being lifted in importance over real-world context, options and effects? Liberating the oppressed is not be countenanced unless done by the pure, for pure motives, with no hope of gain, and btw other methods should be tried first. Only this last objection makes any sense at all to me. The first three objections only serve to ensure that the oppressed will never be liberated by any outside players, except maybe by America, if there are sad pictures and it's cheap (think Somalia and Kosovo).

Now I think Jonah Goldberg is onto something.