Ed Brayton is a journalist, commentator and speaker. He is the co-founder and president of 
The first secretary of homeland security, Tom Ridge, told the AP that waterboarding is clearly torture:
"There's just no doubt in my mind -- under any set of rules -- waterboarding is torture," Tom Ridge said Friday in an interview. Ridge had offered the same opinion earlier in the day to members of the American Bar Association at a homeland security conference."One of America's greatest strengths is the soft power of our value system and how we treat prisoners of war, and we don't torture," Ridge said in the interview. Ridge was secretary of the Homeland Security Department between 2003 and 2005. "And I believe, unlike others in the administration, that waterboarding was, is -- and will always be -- torture. That's a simple statement."
Why does Tom Ridge hate America? Obviously he's been spooning with Osama Bin Laden at night. I like the reference to "soft power", which is a powerful idea developed by Joseph Nye. Nye is a former Assistant Secretary of Defense and the dean of Harvard's Kennedy School of Government. He's been making the case for years that success in the war on terrorism depends very much on "Washington's capacity to persuade others without force."
Nye defines soft power as America's "ability to attract others by the legitimacy of U.S. policies and the values that underlie them" and he argues, almost undeniably, that American soft power is in serious decline. That decline, he persuasively says, "reduc[es] the ability of the United States to achieve its goals without resorting to coercion or payment." He wrote in Foreign Affairs in 2004:
But the recent decline in U.S. attractiveness should not be so lightly dismissed. It is true that the United States has recovered from unpopular policies in the past (such as those regarding the Vietnam War), but that was often during the Cold War, when other countries still feared the Soviet Union as the greater evil. It is also true that the United States' sheer size and association with disruptive modernity make some resentment unavoidable today. But wise policies can reduce the antagonisms that these realities engender. Indeed, that is what Washington achieved after World War II: it used soft-power resources to draw others into a system of alliances and institutions that has lasted for 60 years. The Cold War was won with a strategy of containment that used soft power along with hard power.The United States cannot confront the new threat of terrorism without the cooperation of other countries. Of course, other governments will often cooperate out of self-interest. But the extent of their cooperation often depends on the attractiveness of the United States.
Soft power, therefore, is not just a matter of ephemeral popularity; it is a means of obtaining outcomes the United States wants. When Washington discounts the importance of its attractiveness abroad, it pays a steep price. When the United States becomes so unpopular that being pro-American is a kiss of death in other countries' domestic politics, foreign political leaders are unlikely to make helpful concessions (witness the defiance of Chile, Mexico, and Turkey in March 2003). And when U.S. policies lose their legitimacy in the eyes of others, distrust grows, reducing U.S. leverage in international affairs.
I think Nye's view should be taken very, very seriously. I'd like to see it embraced by political leaders, particularly by those Democrats most likely to be occupying the White House a year from now. There is much damage to be undone, but the election of a new president opens up a window of opportunity to do exactly that if the new president is committed to doing so.
Comments
Emphasising soft power (if not in those exact words) is standard Democratic rhetoric, surely. John Kerry's campaign was built around it.
Posted by: Ginger Yellow | January 21, 2008 10:30 AM
The saddest thing to me is that everyone jumped on the "Bomb the bastards and torture the captives" bandwagon after 9/11. That was when I knew terror had won.
Pelosi, Clinton, and the rest, who supported such crap, have no credibility with me. I'm not crazy about Obama, but at least he opposed the war from the beginning.
Posted by: BaldApe | January 21, 2008 10:42 AM
he argues, almost undeniably, that American soft power is in serious decline.
[For best results, this comment should be read in a John Cleese voice]
In serious decline!? It's passed on! It is no more! It has ceased to be! Bereft of life, etc, etc... It is an ex-parrot.
Posted by: Dunc | January 21, 2008 12:00 PM
I think the Democrats don't actually understand soft power. It's a more subtle concept than "if we're nice they'll like us better." It has in large part to do with having good ideals, holding to them (at least noticeably better than our enemies do).
But it also has to do with anything that makes people want to be like Americans. While McDonalds and Starbucks do stir up some amount of resentment when they locate in other countries, the fact is that they're successful--people in those countries, not just ex-pat Americans, patronize them, and that helps spread the American ideal of free markets and individual choice
Democrats don't get it, to the extent they despise free markets. And some of the more liberal Democrats think only soft power matters, and that hard power (i.e., the military) is always wrong.
But Neo-conservatives are even worse, in my book, because they really don't get the concept of soft-power at all. They're like immature children (or wife-beaters) who just can't understand that hitting people doesn't make them love you.
Nice post, Ed. Nice use of sources to support your argument.
Posted by: James Hanley | January 21, 2008 12:22 PM
Oh, so that's why everyone's stopped emigrating to the U.S., and nobody in other countries is bothering to learn English anymore!
Oh, wait...uh...
Hmm.
Posted by: James Hanley | January 21, 2008 12:24 PM
Way to totally miss the point, dude. We're not talking about whether there are people in the world who think they'd have better opportunities in the US, we're talking about "the ability of the United States to achieve its goals without resorting to coercion or payment." The two subjects are not even tangentially related.
I guess it's not only the Dems who don't understand soft power...
Posted by: Dunc | January 21, 2008 12:41 PM
Can you provide a link to Nye's argument above, or is it based out of a book? I'm currently coaching some LD debaters, and the Jan/Feb topic essentially revolves around Hard Power vs. Soft Power. If you'd rather e-mail it to me, that would be fine.
Posted by: blue yotie | January 21, 2008 1:25 PM
I agree with James, American soft power isn't gone - it's just resting, to quote John Cleese (and it has beautiful plumage). I think America's moral standing can be restored, but only if there's a concerted effort to do so by a leader who understands that moral consistency need not be traded off with our own interests, but rather that moral consistency is ultimately in our own interests. And that requires making a serious moral argument to the American people and basing our policy on such moral considerations. Here's the first step: we should declare that we will not support dictatorial governments with economic or military aid for any reason. And then we should make that a matter of policy. The rest of the world does not take our rhetoric about supporting freedom and democracy seriously - nor should they - because we have so often supported brutal authoritarian governments around the world. We cannot make a serious moral argument against Saddam Hussein after 25 years of supporting him with economic and military aid, intelligence assistance and the like. Supporting dictators always backfires on us and it is time we stopped.
Posted by: Ed Brayton | January 21, 2008 1:32 PM
Ed,
As a Libertarian how can you quote a source from an organization that continually advocates loss of sovereignty for the United States and calls for more "Regional" type governments? You quoted Foreign Affairs which is published by the CFR. I have read article after article that promotes the idea that these regional governments are the solution to global problems in the vastly changing world.
One such article of many is by John Newhouse entitled, "Europe's Rising Regionalism" that was published in 1997. I quote him, "The nation-state is too big to run everyday life, and too small to manage international affairs." The Declaration of Independence created a Nation-State based on inalienable rights. The Constitution was crafted to ensure those rights and bring more efficiency and a National Character to the government in regards to international and interstate affairs. The idea was to bring some uniformity to certain aspects of the system while not infringing on the rights of the citizens.
To say that Nation-States is to small to manage international affairs undermines the very point of drafting our Constitution from the stand point of having one voice in International affairs. To say that The Nation-State is too big to run everday life sounds undermines the very idea of the need to regulate certain aspects of interstate issues. The greatest way to destroy these Nation-States would be to agitate factions in the society to war against each other thus undermining the National character of government. Then it would be very easy to undermine our sovereignty in regards to international issues. This seems to be a two front war to destroy the very foundations of America.
It is the unity of these very factions under a compromise that set forth basic ideals and means to secure them that make us a Nation. Simple question: Do you feel that America needs to remain a sovereign nation? Or do you in the name of Libertarian undermine the very document that you profess to uphold by supporting Regional governments such as the European Union?
Posted by: King of Ireland | January 21, 2008 1:33 PM
King of Ireland wrote:
I quoted from an article written by a specific person, and what I quoted is an idea I support. The fact that you dislike a position taken by other authors in the journal it was published in has precisely nothing to do with whether the idea I cited is a good one or not. If it had been published in another journal would it suddenly become more true?
What I cited also has precisely nothing to do with regional governments or national sovereignty. Try and stick to one subject at a time, for crying out loud. No, I do not support regional governments of this sort. I think America should retain its sovereignty, but I also think we should use our power in a more morally consistent way. The one subject has nothing at all to do with the other.
Posted by: Ed Brayton | January 21, 2008 1:54 PM
His implied conclusions, or his "reasoning"?
A marvellous idea, and one that would certainly go some way towards redeeming your international standing (after 20 or so years to make sure you're telling the truth this time). But, let's be honest here, it's not simply going to happen in anything like the foreseeable future, is it? I mean, even Ron Paul and Dennis Kucinich aren't really that radical, and neither of them has a hope in hell of ever getting elected. And even if they did, they would still find themselves stuck with the prevailing institutional realities. To imagine that the US is going to turn its back on Hu Jintao, Abdullah bin Abdul Aziz, or Islam Karimov any time soon is positively delusional.
Posted by: Dunc | January 21, 2008 1:57 PM
Actually, now I think about it more, I can see Karimov becoming the new Saddam in a few years time. Too likely to be insubordinate...
Posted by: Dunc | January 21, 2008 2:06 PM
Ed stated,
" No, I do not support regional governments of this sort. I think America should retain its sovereignty, but I also think we should use our power in a more morally consistent way. The one subject has nothing at all to do with the other."
I agree whole heartedly with the second statement. I am not trying to link you with certain groups based on quoting one article. I apologize for that perception. I am just trying to figure out this whole debate on what "Libertarian" actually means. But I do think that one's position on Central, State or Provincial, and international governments is relevant to which approach we take in international relations.
Almost every hot-spot in the world right now is because we are trying to "democratize" certain people by eliminating totalitarian regimes (Supposedly), instituting new central governments, and bring warring factions together under compromise. Iraq seems to be the poster child for "Nation Building" that is the baby of the CFR. It is going in in Burma, Nepal, Pakistan, and other places as well. I used to think this was a good idea until I began to read about the ideas behind doing this. This is most prominently displayed the Article "The Clash of Civilizations" and another older book "Jihad vs.McWorld".
The idea behind it seems to be the "hard" line you are saying is wrong here. I would say, and I think you would agree, that the worst thing we have done to tarnish our image overseas is using the sword to promote democracy. So I agree with you but World Affairs seems to consistently espouse their "Regional" philosphy and the very nature of a "Clash of Civilizations" (An article that pops up the second you go on the sight)does not seem to point to a "soft" approach. I understand that different authors with different views write for World Affairs but the theme of the CFR has not changed: Replace Nation-States with Regional Governments. Thus, I have to conclude that the reason they seek to build a "nation" is to then incorporate it into some "Regional" government.
So I think it was fair question to ask whether the "soft" approach that you advocate would also advocate Regional governments. If that is the case we are swallowing the nat to strain out the camel. I guess my point is this: What are we trying to do in these Nations? I would ask Bush and Mc Cain this right off the bat if I could get on the debates. What does victory mean? What we are trying to do needs to be answered before we can even discuss how? Our view of what we advocate in regards to our own government is relevant to what we would export. So when I see both right and left seeking to erode our Constitution they have no credibility when it comes to "promoting Democracy" abroad whether they call themselves Democrat or Repulican.
I favor the view that says we are a Republic not a Democracy and that the original ideals of the Constitution would be a noble thing to promote througout the world. I would advocate doing so through reason and ideas since the sword cannot change the heart. I also think "Domionists" that think making us a Theocracy to emulate around the world so "Jesus" can rule are misguided and often brainwashed. If they win out the Dark Ages will return sooner or later. I do believe in the Kingdom of Heaven and that it has and will continue to come to earth. I believe that government is and will be a part of that. I also do not believe it will look the way that most Christians think it will. I am pretty sure Jesus is not a Republican.
Why? I see almost no compassion, grace, abounding love, faithfulness, forgiveness, slowness to anger, and justice coming forth. So I do think that what we seek to export is a much more important question than how? Though how is a relevant topic that I may have strayed from in that it was not the question raised in the article. You say you are a Libertarian and I am trying to fugure out what that exactly means to different people. That was the reason for the question and why I think one does have something to do with the other.
Posted by: King of Ireland | January 21, 2008 2:50 PM
I suggest you stop focusing so obsessively on the word "libertarian" and focus instead on the ideas I advocate. It would make things a lot more coherent, I promise you.
Posted by: Ed Brayton | January 21, 2008 4:21 PM
Considering that "soft on ______" is standard demonizing rhetoric among the very same people who have been undermining, or supporting the undermining of, our "soft power", I think using the term "soft power" will only hurt that cause. If some politician were to advocate "fighting terrorism with soft power", Fox news would report it as him being "soft on terrorism". Maybe "tough goodness" or "rugged benevolence" or something similarly manly would make it more effective. (Sadly, I'm only half joking.)
Posted by: jpf | January 21, 2008 5:40 PM
Not so fast. Another decade or two of Reptilian rule, and all this will really happen.
- The EU is comparable in size to the USA, not to the NAFTA.
- If it is too big for some things and too small for others, how does it follow it doesn't have the right size for anything? Of course it doesn't. Which is why the EU member countries still exist. BTW, Ireland is an EU member and has even adopted the €.
That's the title of a majorly ignorant book, BTW.
Wrong terminology. "Republic" merely means "not monarchy". The USA is (supposed to be) a representative democracy (as opposed to a direct democracy).
Huh?
Posted by: David Marjanović | January 21, 2008 5:51 PM
What's that, jpf? Are you advocating ... framing? ;-)
Posted by: Michael Ralston | January 21, 2008 6:05 PM
Ed Stated:
"I suggest you stop focusing so obsessively on the word "libertarian" and focus instead on the ideas I advocate. It would make things a lot more coherent, I promise you."
What are the ideas you advocate? You seem to be a fan of the Bill of Rights in regard to free speech and freedom of religion. What about other civil liberties? I am not trying to give you a hard time. I am trying to see where these ideas are coming from. I spent many years ignoring this stuff becuase my church wrongly convince me it was unimportant. I am doing a lot of reading along these lines and trying to educate myself from many ideas across the political spectrum to see where I fit in.
I guess my main question is what do you not like about a guy like Ron Paul? You two would seem to agree more than it seems that you do.
Posted by: King of Ireland | January 21, 2008 6:07 PM
David M stated:
"Huh?"
I believe that as Jesus stated that there is a Kingdom of Heaven coming but am advocation a much different theme than what the Relgious Right would advocate. I think this
Posted by: King of Ireland | January 21, 2008 6:10 PM
King of Ireland:
I think you've gotten hung up on trying to fit Ed into the term 'libertarian' - that is, to identify him by a label rather than the ideas he actually holds (e.g., you're reaching for that "Oh, so THAT's what a Libertarian believes!" instead of just taking Ed's position at face value).
If you want to know what Ed thinks about things, all you need to do is read this blog. He makes no bones about his stance on various issues, and he's one of the most philosophically consistent individuals I've ever read.
So far as I can tell, Ed's point of view on most things is pretty obvious. Just read some of his past posts and you'll get a pretty clear view of Ed's ideas. There's the convenient list of Archives there on the left hand side of the blog.
Posted by: Patrick | January 21, 2008 7:14 PM
Sorry got cut off.
Here is what I am saying it is long but here me out and hopefully you will see where I am coming from and why this post sparked my interest:
All major relgions have some sort of utopian vison for mankind at the end of the age. Most have some sort of "messianic" figure they are looking to come. I would include with this: Marxist, New Agers, and Secular Humanists for lack of better terms. The religions that I know of that have this are Buddhism, Hinduism, Islam, and Christianity.
With that said, all seem to be looking for this man and the society He will lead to come. Some would say that all have some truth and that the "golden age" of man will have bits and pieces from all traditions and exclude no one. Others will say that their interpretation is the right one and say everyone else is wrong. The dominionists or Relgion Right Christians who advocate a Theocracy that Ed and most on this sight seem to disagree with seem to what to make a case:
1. This was founded as a Christian Nation
2. We need to return it to those "values"
3. We need to spread these ideals througout the world and the Kingdom of Heaven will come.
This is short and not all believe this who would call themselves Religous Right. But in general after years of hearing this crap this is what they are saying. Others say that it is getting worse all the time and that some rapture is coming and that all the heathen will be left behind. I disagree with both camps.
What I am advocating is this:
1. There are Biblical principles in the Founding Documents but the Declaration and Constitution are not "Christian" documents but brilliantly written compromises of many factions of society that while they believed in God would not all or even a majority have called themselve Born again or Evangelical Christians. In fact, perhaps the most important point of the documents seems to be overlooked by some today that want to call this a Christian Nation. It is the Freedom of Religion.
2. Just as much of an influence was enlightenment thinking and ideas about Government. Many of these men seem to be Deists but certainly not Evangelical Christians by any stretch. Who was who is hard to discern sometimes but some it is obvious. Jefferson, despite what James D. Kennedy says, is was not an Evangelical Christian and should not be quoted as such. I think these ideas were great and show that Christian do not have an exclusive market on good ideas that benefit society.
3. We need to allow all factions of society have their say and influence over government including the Biblical one. I say Biblical one instead of Christian because it is so hard to discern what a Christian is today. This would include great ideals that are found in all religions of the governed that in my mind are consistent with the original spirit of the documents. (On a personal view I believe the the Bible is special revelation of God that reveals Him to mankind. I also believe in what is called general revelation meaning that aspects of who God is can be found in all types of literature and art but have to be tested against the Bible)
4. We need a dialouge about what values and ideals our Country was based on and how that has evolved toward trying to make sure we do not stray too far from there ideals and lose our freedom.
5. Because we have always had a tremendous influence on the world, we should seek to influence it for the better in all aspects including government.
I feel that Republican form of government based on inalienable rights bestowed upon man from God is the type of government that needs to be promoted. Since God was invoked as the reason for these rights as part of our dialouge we need to ask questions about who God is and what He represents.
It is my view based on my reading of the Bible and extensive dialouge with others both here and abroad from other philosphies and religions that God as described in the Bible is the real God. This is to say the all roads lead to Rome is naive in that all the religions very different on some essential points. So one can water them all down,study them all and pick which makes most sense, or throw it all out. I respect all three camps.
With that said, government should never be used as a conversion tool. This is not evangelism. It never should be. We do not need a Pastor in chief. We need the best man for the job. It should be a compromise by factions of people that believe enough in certain ideals that they are willing to work together. This is what the Constitution was.
So all I am asking is to be heard about what I think the government should look like, be a Christian, and not be thrown in with the Relgious Right. I do think there is a golden age of man coming. I just think it will be when we take of the mantle we were created for: Reflecting the glory of God by being transformed into the image of God. Other disagree that is ok. But we need to dialouge about it. Hitler wanted to usher in a golden age for man. He was way off. That is why we need to talk about ideals and where they came from. The biggest problem is most people never question anything. That is when freedom is lost. Hitler could come again and he might be wearing a cross!
Posted by: King of Ireland | January 21, 2008 7:21 PM
Patrick stated:
"If you want to know what Ed thinks about things, all you need to do is read this blog."
I have been but sometimes you need clarifications on points to really see where someone is coming from. I started on here many months ago and He really has gotten me to look at things from a different angle. I do not always agree with him but he seems to be consistent I agree. Most of all he is extremely intelligent. I have some ideas on how to dismantle the Religous Right and the corner on the market on speaking for Evangelicals.
I figure instead of beating my head against the wall like I have been the last 9 years and getting no where trying to tell them that they are disconnected from society and how people thing so much so that people have just tuned them out I would go into the fire, get my ass kicked a little, and then do and try to teach the next generation of Christians to think for themselves and test things instead of being indoctrinated. Not all Evangelical Christians are the same.
Posted by: King of Ireland | January 21, 2008 7:29 PM
Dunc:
I see where Dunc is coming from, but I don't think he's correct.
Continued high levels of Immigration show that many people still like the U.S. and what it has to offer. That's not soft power itself, but an indicator of the continuing existence of some soft power--i.e., some continuing good feeling toward the U.S.
Some things are hard to measure directly, so we look for indirect measures. That's all I meant. And it works because in fact they are tangentially related. Probably only tangentially, not directly, but that's enough to make some rough estimates.
Posted by: James Hanley | January 21, 2008 8:46 PM
Regarding the issue of state vs. international vs. regional power structures, the US is a special case simply because it is so dominant in North America as well as a sufficiently big player to be taken seriously globally. To a limited extent this is also true for China and India and - if you want to be very generous - Russia. It does not follow from that, however, that creating regional power structures in other regions - such as the European Union - is not superior to maintaining a gaggle of minor countries.
Nor does it follow that the three (four) great powers mentioned earlier would not do well by committing themselves to greater regional co-operation. I should think, for instance, that co-operation between China and India would be in their own best interest, and creating a unified power centre in Southeast Asia would certainly go a long way towards pulling Australia and the other Pacific minors into the orbit of Beijing and New Delhi.
Further, in the specific case of the USA, I can see a distinct strategic advantage to a regionalist approach. Specifically, the US must be aware that whether they support the notion of regionalism or not, Unasur and the EU are not going to go away. I should think that if the US pursues a rigid anti-regionalist policy (not to mention continuing to flaunt international law and piss on the UN), much of Central America could align itself with Unasur rather than the USA. I'm thinking about Panama in particular. If the USA is sufficiently isolationist, I even see the possibility of Canada gravitating towards a closer relationship with the two other Arctic powers - Russia and the Union.
Unless you wish to resort to agressive, traditional imperialism directed against key strategic Central American states - which is a kind of unilateralism that is historically Frowned Upon in a multipolar world - some kind of accord must be reached with those states before they become firmly embedded in Unasur's sphere of interest, or you will run the risk of waking up one fine day and finding yourselves in the role of the British during the Suez Crisis. Or, perhaps more pointedly, in the role of the Russians trying to understand how Poland and the Caucasian rim slipped out of their control.
And as an aside, the US is most emphatically not a "nation state." A nation state is a state whose borders are aligned drawn along national divides. Denmark is a nation state. Poland is a nation state. Germany is a nation state. France, Britain and the USA are not. In point of fact, the US is precisely the opposite of a nation state: Its borders are drawn utterly without regard for national divides. If you mean 'sovereign state,' then FFS write that.
- JS
Posted by: JS | January 21, 2008 8:51 PM
Ed:
Hmm, Ed doesn't sound like a cynic here, but more of an idealist.
I find it eminently unsatisfying, but I think there are times when supporting dictatorial governments may be the best of a set of unsatisfying options. Although if we started discussing specific cases, I suspect I'd conclude that we often support them when it's not the best option (e.g., Iran against Iraq, Iraq against Iran, etc.)
Posted by: James Hanley | January 21, 2008 8:53 PM
The alleged King of Ireland wrote:
The assumption in your question is that a libertarian should favor the sovereignty of the U.S. Why? Perhaps a libertarian should actually favor the sovereignty of the individual, and be distrustful of the sovereignty of anything calling itself a state (or quasi-state, or regional government, etc.).
In that case the only reason to be more concerned about regional governments is that they are harder for the citizen to escape from if they don't want to live under it (i.e, I can move out of my town easily, but less easily out of the U.S. or North America).
That's just a pragmatic reason to be more leery of regional governments than national governments. But I'd rather live in a North American quasi-state that is strongly federalized (that is, one where the states within it retain a lot of room for individual policy differences), than a still independent but dictatorial United States.
King, you write too long, and you ramble. There's any number of people here who make more sense while using far less space. Try editing and revising before you post.
Posted by: James Hanley | January 21, 2008 9:05 PM
We're not talking about whether there are people in the world who think they'd have better opportunities in the US, we're talking about "the ability of the United States to achieve its goals without resorting to coercion or payment." The two subjects are not even tangentially related.
Yes, they are related, and more than "tangentially." Immigration to the US, and support for our policies abroad, are both due, at least in part, to a certain degree of respect for our goals and values, and the belief that, imperfect though we are, our way of doing things is still better than others' in some significant ways.
I have long maintained that there are many people in the Muslim world who are actively embracing certain Western values (secularism, free speech, etc.), and trying to implement them in their home countries; and that those who commit terrorist acts against our interests, allies and values, are doing so in reaction to this shift. We still have some "soft power," and we could get a lot more back if we elect a Democrat this year, but we've blown a lot of it, and we could easily blow more of it if we're not careful.
Posted by: Raging Bee | January 21, 2008 9:38 PM
May I make a suggestion? (I seem to like retorical questions, I appologize). Perhaps you could have a seperate blog dedicated to debating what "Libetration" means? Perhaps that will keep the King of Ireland happy and give others who are not so interested in semantics a break. Just a thought - DJ
PS Speaking English as example of US "soft power" ... Umm English came from a Saxon/Norman pidgon developed in ENGLAND. The future US, t that time, spoke a number of native languages not closely related to Indo-European languages. Perhaps it's an example of English soft-power during the period 1500 - 1900.
Posted by: DingoJack | January 21, 2008 10:46 PM
James Hanley:
The second part of this paragraph is the key. Even if there are theoretical cases where supporting dictators is optimal, how liely is it that a highly fallible government will correctly identify them? This is a point too few people understand. It may well be that a general policy of never supporting dictators is better than picking and choosing if you will often choose the wrong dictators to support.
Posted by: James | January 21, 2008 11:55 PM
Optimal is not equivalent to good. I can easily think of cases where supporting dictatorship is actually better than nothing...
Posted by: gwangung | January 21, 2008 11:58 PM
King of Ireland wrote:
Forget trying to figure out which label applies to you (or to me) and focus on the ideas you believe to be true. The label does not matter, the ideas matter. As for what I advocate: yes, I am a virtual absolutist when it comes to free speech (no one is a thorough absolutist, there are legitimate exceptions, but I am for basing those exceptions on genuine and tangible harm to another person and for drawing them as narrowly as they can possibly be drawn).
I am actually not an absolutist when it comes to separation of church and state. I think non-coercive accommodationism is a legitimate interpretation of the first amendment's religion clauses, though I think the modern world of religious diversity makes separationism, which is also a legitimate interpretation, the better option. Though I fight actively against the religious right on many church/state questions, I also have some positions that those on my side of that divide would likely find disappointing. For instance, I do not think that school vouchers are unconstitutional. I also think we should get rid of the IRS rules against political involvement by churches. So I take plenty of positions that will take fire from both sides on that one.
As I've written many times, there is a lot about Ron Paul to like. I love his bold and unwavering stance against constitutional abuses, especially habeas corpus and the rampant 4th amendment violations of the Bush administration (and his equal stance against similar abuses by the Clinton administration, which I've detailed elsewhere). I love his resolute stance against torture. I think he's the only candidate from either party who really takes fiscal responsibility seriously and has any intention of actually reducing the size and scope of the government in our lives, which would be a very good thing.
But I've also spelled out pretty clearly the reasons why I cannot support him. If you want it spelled out in labels, I would say that he isn't a libertarian but a paleo-conservative. But let's not worry about labels, let's look at ideas. I think Ron Paul has very close ties to groups that I find very dangerous - nativist, racist groups that advocate the very opposite of liberty. I've spelled this out in great detail in other threads.
Posted by: Ed Brayton | January 22, 2008 12:47 AM
The trouble with "soft power" is that it is reliant on practising (particularly in terms of foreign relations) what you preach, or at least hiding or obfuscating your failures to do so. The US has always been at best imperfect at the former, and the latter has become increasingly difficult given modern global communications and the internet.
I suspect that effective use of soft power today would require a concentrated effort to ensure that actual policies matched the image a government was trying to project, and a conscious willingness to forgo the advantages of occasionally subverting those policies for pragmatic reasons.
Posted by: Hrafn | January 22, 2008 4:22 AM
James Hanley wrote:
>>Democrats don't get it, to the extent they despise free markets. And some of the more liberal Democrats think only soft power matters, and that hard power (i.e., the military) is always wrong.
Democrats do not despise free markets. In general, they recognize, just as the Republicans do, that in the modern world there are no truly "free" markets, that markets always operate by some set of rules or another. How Republicans, Democrats, and most of other political persuasions differ is on what rules should be in place. The market is a game and different rules produce different winners and losers. Republicans and Democrats both want to put rules in place to jimmy the game in favor of different segments of the population. That's all.
Only the very radical, like some radical libertarians and anarchists (in the political sense of the word), believe that markets should be truly "free" and not regulated at all. Democrats simply have a different idea of what sort of market is best than Republicans, but both believe, in general, in capitalism, but with a regulated market.
It is true, though, that there are some on the liberal left who don't believe in "hard" power at all. But the biggest proponent of that position that I have seen wasn't a Democrat at all: it was Ralph Nader in 2000. Nader, on David Letterman in that year, basically said he would castrate the military if he won. That put me off him immediately. I am pretty darned liberal, but I'm not stupid. We can debate whether the US needs to spend more on its military than the whole rest of the world combined, but it's just dumb to think the US doesn't need a powerful military and can depend entirely on "soft" power.
Teddy Roosevelt had it right. "Soft" power works much better when there is the implied threat of "hard" power to back it up. While some very liberal people might not understand this, I don't think many in the Democratic party are that far off to the left.
Posted by: mooglar | January 22, 2008 11:16 AM
Ed,
Thanks for the clarifications. I think my entire point in most of what I have written on this site is about labels. Many on "your side" seem to want to label all Evangelicals as the same. In making this point I am not trying to label you. I am trying to see where you are coming from. I am getting more of an idea. In fact, you have caused me to look at some positions I used to take and re-examine them.
To other who commented on what I wrote:
As far as writing too long. I am guilty. I am getting used to this type of media. Pleae bear with me. In short, in response to some of the comments about regional governments, it is my view that we would have to give of some of our sovereinty to join into a Regional government. I would be completely against this for many reasons.
As far as the U.S. not being a nation-state that is a good point and if true puts some real holes in some of the things I said. That is why I think terms and labels can be important at times. But like Ed said at other times it clouds the sharing of ideas. I am going to think a lot about all that was said in this exchange and maybe start a site of my own to elaborate on what I am trying to get at:
Waking people up to the reality that the very document that ensures or freedoms we love are being eroded from the right AND THE LEFT.
Posted by: King of Ireland | January 22, 2008 2:11 PM
Of course you'll have to surrender parts of your sovereignty to participate in meaningful regional and multilateral institutions. That's kinda part of the point. The thing about regional institutions is that the surrender of sovereignty is a two-way street: Yes, you surrender part of your sovereignty in order to align parts of your policy with the strategic interests of your partners - but conversely, they surrender parts of their sovereignty in order to align their policies along your strategic interests. Hopefully, what you give up is less important to you than what you gain from that bargain (and wonder of wonders, sometimes you may even agree with your partners on an issue, making the aligning all the easier and more painless).
What I think skews most Americans' perception of this is that your immediate neighbours have been essentially your client states for so long that you've forgotten that they might someday (re)assert their sovereignty - or, more realistically, align themselves with power blocs who are willing to give them a say in the decisions they are bound by... With possibly unpleasant consequences for your long-term strategic interests. In other words, you have been used to reaping the benefits of regionalism without paying the cost in loss of sovereignty.
That works in a unipolar world. It also works in a bipolar world, if the other side is sufficiently unappealing, or in a bi- or multi-polar world where there is a tacit understanding that imperialist intervention within your own sphere of interest is accepted. But we are heading into (if we are not already in) a multi-polar world: You can expect both your ability to play the "but Russia is worse" card and the area of the globe that is considered your legitimate sphere of interest by the other great powers to shrink. Possibly dramatically, and probably rapidly. In which case you'll be left with a much reduced sphere of client states... and no genuine strategic partnerships, because all such 'partnerships' have so far been suzereign-vassal relationships dressed up in nicer rhetoric (and sometimes only marginally nicer at that).
- JS
Posted by: JS | January 23, 2008 9:46 PM