« D'Souza - The Enemy At Home | Main | Authoritarian Great Powers »
March 06, 2007
Paul Johnson - Idealism and Realpolitik
This is regarding a one page column in the March 12, 2007 issue of Forbes. Paul Johnson is a British historian and author.
His column discusses the tension in American foreign policy between pursuing idealist policies such as helping the weak, oppressed or needy versus dealing with the real world. He refers to the issue as "constant practical and moral conflict." Johnson concludes real politik is necessary and he defines it simply. "... as British statesmen found ... imperial real politik expressed itself in two cynical maxims: 'Divide and rule" and 'My enemy's enemy is my friend.'"
Is that the essence of real politik? There are limits to what you can cover on one page of a popular magazine, and I'm sure Johnson could say a great deal more. Certainly the one page is inadequate.
The experts on real politik are Machiavelli, Richelieu and Bismarck. Each of them would employ Johnson's two cynical maxims, but real politik, or raison d'etat, is more than that. It is pursuit of a clearly defined, overarching concept of national interest. Military activity, diplomacy and politics are then conformed to serve achievement of that objective. Morality, truthfulness, and propriety are ignored.
Machiavelli wanted a strong man, a Prince, to singlemindedly pursue the unification of Italy, without the distraction of moral restraints or religious scruples. The popes were always there to prevent unification. Richelieu wanted to unite France under the institution of the monarchy, cripple the superpower of the day (the Hapsburgs) and by default leave France as the dominant nation of Europe. He succeeded. Bismarck wanted to unite the Germans under Prussian leadership and dominate Europe. He also had success, although it was temporary.
It is not enough for the US to be willing to use questionable tactics when required in international conflicts and confrontations. What is our overarching objective? D'Souza's book, The Enemy at Home, attributes much of our difficulty in the "war on terror" to a lack of clear understanding of our enemy and ourselves. We need much more than to add a couple more tactics to our quiver.
For the sake of debate, I would say the US wants to live at peace with other nations, improving its circumstances through voluntary interactions and through trade. Such a world would have freedom of the seas, free trade, and sufficient acceptance of law that the individual rights, contract and property rights of Americans would be respected around the world. In addition we do not want a hostile power to dominate our hemisphere, Europe, or the western Pacific.
Unless some country or group threatens these core interests, we should hold back. If genocide occurs, or wars of aggression are launched, or other terrible international crimes are committed, let's allow international organizations to address them - even if those organizations are not very effective.
There is the special problem of the volatile Middle East and our addiction to oil. I would really like to see the US get that addiction under control. Then we could let the Muslims engage in their own complex politics, and stay out of the way.
Posted by rob at March 6, 2007 09:02 AM
Comments
Posted by: Anonymous at March 6, 2007 09:02 AM