Quotations: David Rieff
I take the administration at its word that this is the new project for America in the world. But to me, both the "hard Wilsonians" of the Bush administration, to use the name coined by the Council on Foreign Relations' Max Boot, and their liberal interventionist interlocutors are suffering from a terrible hubris, a terrible utopianism about not just the use of force, but about the promise of democracy itself. The right at least used to scorn utopianism, as a folly of liberalism and the left. Communism, it was said, taught one where utopianism led. And yet, what has the administration's policy been if not utopian?
Presume, for a moment, that we don't have the wisdom to transform foreign societies. Suddenly, the world looks very different and our actions--even presuming the most idealistic motivation for them--have a very different, much more dangerous, and certainly much less exalting resonance. President Bush has said that, in order to protect freedom at home, we must, in effect, go abroad to create freedom. That is, and doubtless will remain, American policy for the foreseeable future. But if it goes wrong, as I desperately fear that it will, perhaps John Quincy Adams's words in his Independence Day speech of 1821 will resonate once more. "Once enlisting under other banners, were they even the banners of foreign independence, [America] would involve herself beyond the power of extrication, in all the wars of interest and intrigue, of individual avarice, envy, and ambition, which assumes the colors and usurp the standard of freedom. The fundamental maxims of her policy would insensibly change from liberty to force." - David Reiff
Posted on 10/5/2005 10:01 AM
by
Michael Brendan Dougherty
in Quotations
|
7 Comments
|
1 Reference
Share this: del.icio.us | Digg | Google | Ma.gnolia | Reddit | Stumble Upon | Technorati
Michael Brendan Dougherty
in Quotations
|
7 Comments
|
1 Reference
Share this: del.icio.us | Digg | Google | Ma.gnolia | Reddit | Stumble Upon | Technorati
View Printer Friendly Version
Email Article to FriendReferences (1)
References allow you to track sources for this article, as well as articles that were written in response to this article.
-
his is Mr. Gerecht's insightful comment: "You can get to Thomas Jefferson without first having Martin Luther." Let me say right off that this is something of an insult to Luther, who may have been a rather confrontational and ill-tempered monk but was still a man of serious and broad learning in patristics and the humanities--that he used that learning to little good end is not the point--and the Ayatollah has no such claim to our tradition or any comparable tradition of humane learning. I would
Reader Comments (7)
I think it is not illogical to say that the President has made policy choices imprudent in the context of the Arab world (or perhaps anywhere) and placed excessive value on certain goods (e.g. liberal-democratic institutions) without saying he or his associates believe social perfection is possible (much less that the Marines, excellent though they may be, can midwife it). Correct me if I misunderstand, but it appears the point of the policy is to enhance domestic security and, as an intermediate goal, to render the political life of Iraq and Afghanistan passably orderly and benign (as it was prior to 1958 in the former case and prior to 1973 in the latter). The ultimate goal may not be advanced by the intermediate goals and the intermediate goals may be practically unachievable or worthless. However, neither the ultimate nor the intermediate goals are 'utopian', properly understood.
This notion of peaceful democracy is not only historically wrong, but betrays a frightening misunderstanding of nature of the fallen human state. The idea that democracy everywhere will end war (and so, naturally, we must start wars to bring war to an end), because wars are caused only by unjust, authoritarian regimes, is clearly utoptianism, and it is on this point where Wilsonian idealism and utopianism meet and shake hands. It was on this basis that the monarchies of Europe were abolished, which worked so well for all involved.
It would not be enough to make them utopian if Wilsonians simply believed that there was a single model of human progress, or whatever it was that Mr. Bush called the current order, and that every knee must bow to it, but the fact that they definitely do believe that their model will eliminate most, if not all, social and economic problems the world over and establish a reign of peace makes them utopians. If it is not a faith in human perfectibility, which became an absurd idea in 1914, it is just about as close as people are capable of coming in this rather cynical age.
I would suggest that Mr. Bush's speeches possess quite a bit of this sort of Wilsonianism mixed with Wilson's own kind of utopianism. It may be granted, however, that Mr. Rieff did not make that argument, even if he was on the right track, and so the earlier posts make a good point that his use of "utopianism" as a term was a little bit fast and loose.
When you refer to 'realism' are you referring to an articulated theory of politcal behavior (e.g. Hans Morgenthau's), or a general disposition brought to bear on evaluating political events? 'Realism' in the study of international politics has its uses but also its weaknesses. It purports to be a theory of positive description and does not provide answers to normative questions (and ultimately, you are going to need some answers such as that to make political choices). Also, its practitioners were (at such time as I studied that sort of thing) much more adept at discursive reasoning than at emprical verification. Please note also, to say one is a 'realist' can be as much a boast as a description of one's politics.
However, I would say that there is a utopian strain in democratist thinking (and there has always been a certain utopian quality to any kind of revolutionary idea). This is true insofar as the overly simplified claims of enthusiasts for spreading democracy involve democracy ushering in something akin to the millennium.
You do not offer a citation to the utterances of any particular person; the descriptive term 'millenarian' does not seem particularly appropriate for Charles Krauthammer, to take one example. Now, are the claims 'overly simplified' because of the media in which they are expressed (an editorial column in the Wall Street Journal allows for less elaboration than an article in The American Enterprise, which in turn will not have the sophistication of a paper in Society), or becuase there truly is no 'high' discourse of 'democratism' of which this sort of topical commentary is derivative, or because of the structural properties of the nexus of ideas itself?
If Mr. Bush does not believe in actual human perfectibility by human means (although he has enough credentials as a liberal to make one suspect that he might), he certainly believes in the reality and inevitability of progress towards the completion of a worldwide democratic order--
I have not listened to a Presidential address (bar one) in 24 years and have not read the text of one in twenty years, so I suspect you know more of the President's publically expressed thinking than I ever could. Now, it is true that the components of democratic institutions (the adjudication of political disputes by electoral competition in the context of freewheeling public debate) are a good deal more prevalent now than they have been at any time in the last 90 years, and perhaps than at any time in recorded history. If I extrapolate from that and adjudge it likely to continue, I am making a positive statement about the evolution of political institutions. That does not entail any views on whether the sort of injustices inhibited by democratic institutions provide sufficient benefit to offset any defects systemically associated with them, or any views on the consequentiality of improvements in political life in the full scheme of things.
...that is a kind of utopianism, as its realisation is impossible...
I think you are right that utopia is impossible. However, it is not a necessary thing that a particular sort of institutional arrangements (e.g. rule by caudillo) will always be. Chattel slavery has nearly ceased to exist in the contemporary world, and executive monarchy is quite unusual. The former was prevalent and the latter a norm in the 18th century.
We also see this in the fraudulent arguments advanced by Mr. Bush's hangers-on...
The arguments may be wise or silly. They can only be 'fraudulent' if the people advancing them are being self-consciously insincere.
...that democracies are inherently more peaceful and that, in the most extreme formulations of an R.J. Rummel, when democracy reigns everywhere war will become a thing of the past.
There are comparatively few historical examples of democratic societies doing battle with eachother. Having made that observation, we are left with the vexed question of whether what appear to be the comparatively pacific tendencies of democratic politics arises from signature properties of that type of political society, or from corellates of that type of society, or is merely a misconception brought about by historical coincidence. We are also left with the question of how reliable is the association between democratic institutions and pacific tendencies in foreign policy, i.e. in how many contingencies such tendencies can be expected to operate. The answers to both of these questions do have policy implications. (And who is R.J. Rummel?).
This notion of peaceful democracy is not only historically wrong, but betrays a frightening misunderstanding of nature of the fallen human state.
It may betray a misunderstanding of human nature. It may also be merely a faulty political sociology or an erroneous interpretation of modern history. And such would be perfectly ordinary. Nearly all of us are wrong most of the time about things abstract from our daily lives.
The idea that democracy everywhere will end war (and so, naturally, we must start wars to bring war to an end), because wars are caused only by unjust, authoritarian regimes, is clearly utoptianism, and it is on this point where Wilsonian idealism and utopianism meet and shake hands. It was on this basis that the monarchies of Europe were abolished, which worked so well for all involved.
You may be right in your assessment of Wilson. (Did you read Philip Jenkins article on Wilson's social vision in The Chesterton Review in 2002?). I will take the time to point out, however, that the lesser sovereigns of Europe survived the First World War. Among those who did not, the Hapsburg and Romanov dynasties were facing severe internal challenges and suffering structural weaknesses prior to the war and may have been discredited to a degree by poor performance during it. Their demise cannot be securely laid at Prof. Wilson's door.
It would not be enough to make them utopian if Wilsonians simply believed that there was a single model of human progress...
What if the model in which they believed had it that all progress was individual and inward?