Accepting the Bush administration’s view that the more dangerous the Bush administration makes the world the more we need to keep on keepin’ on with the Bush approach is, as I said, absurd. Still, it’s one thing to slam the incumbents and another thing to offer ideas of your own. And, naturally, people disagree.
Recently, we’ve been hashing this out a bit at The American Prospect Online. Shadi Hamid got the ball rolling with a two part series arguing that a certain form of democracy-promotion (though not the invade-conquer-occupy-democratize model) really should be at the heart of American — and liberal — national security policy. Spencer Ackerman fired back arguing that the emphasis on democracy is misguided and rather dangerous. The primary concern, he says, should instead be human rights. Ernest Wilson, meanwhile, weighed in on TPMCafe arguing for a more holistic approach and outlining a somewhat complicated view.
On the subject of the Ackerman-Hamid dispute, I tend to side with Spencer, though not quite with his level of vehemence and conviction. For my part, I think their disagreement is focusing on somewhat the wrong issue. I don’t buy into the strict academic realist view that the internal politics of foreign countries are irrelevant, but I don’t think they can reasonably be made the main focus of what American foreign policy tries to accomplish in the world. Rather, the main issue at hand is the nature of the world order. Wilson specifically argues that “Having a [progressive foreign policy should require more than declaring oneself in favor of a ‘liberal international order,'” which I guess is right, but I actually think declaring oneself in favor of a liberal international order would be a pretty good start. Perhaps I’ll spell out what that means down the road.
