Dems and GOP: Positions on (Humanitarian?) Interventions...Ain't It Weird?
O.k., this has got to be quick b/c I'm supposed to be cooking supper...but I've been thinking about positions that the parties have taken on the use of military force, esp. when humanitarian considerations are involved... And I'm not sure I can make sense out of it.
I was under the impression that conservatives/Republicans (I'll treat them as being the same thing here) were against any purely humanitarian intervention. When I was first becoming cognizant of politics, I thought the GOP's battle cry in these matters was "we can't be the world's policeman!" That's clearly the position of foreign policy "realists," and the vast majority of "realists" are in the GOP (Cheney's one of them, Rice is sometimes one of them). Liberals/Democrats seem more likely to want to expend treasure for humanitarian reasons, but many of them are more hesitant to use force for any reason, so that clouds the equation. Many liberals I know were enthusiastically in support of Clinton's interventions in the former Yugoslavia, though some of the leftier lefties are even against that one. The right was mostly against it, on the grounds that we had no national interest there...which, again, makes them seem like "realists." But then comes Gulf War Episode II: The Phantom Menace, and we have conservatives talking about taking out Saddam for humanitarian reasons, and liberals often seeming...well...often seeming unimpressed by those considerations. Why? The obvious explanation is that they didn't believe that we were going to war for humanitarian reasons--talk of democratization only came to the fore after the WMD and al Qaeda/9/11 justifications fell through. The response to that, though, seems to be: even if the administration didn't go for humanitarian reasons, it would still be good that we went so long as there are humanitarian reasons for going...even if those reasons didn't move the administration. But then I suppose the response is: but the likely humanitarian gains in this case were not large enough to warrant the risk--and the certain costs, including opportunity costs--of going in.
So, anyway, my question is something like this: what conditions must be met for an ideal intervention according to the two different parties? Or what are some examples? Ignoring WWII, I think we could say that Kosovo was close to being an ideal intervention from the perspective of many Democrats...and I think Rwanda would have been such an intervention if we had gone. Does that seem right? And what would an ideal intervention be like according to Republicans?
That's sloppy, but I hope you get the point.
O.k., this has got to be quick b/c I'm supposed to be cooking supper...but I've been thinking about positions that the parties have taken on the use of military force, esp. when humanitarian considerations are involved... And I'm not sure I can make sense out of it.
I was under the impression that conservatives/Republicans (I'll treat them as being the same thing here) were against any purely humanitarian intervention. When I was first becoming cognizant of politics, I thought the GOP's battle cry in these matters was "we can't be the world's policeman!" That's clearly the position of foreign policy "realists," and the vast majority of "realists" are in the GOP (Cheney's one of them, Rice is sometimes one of them). Liberals/Democrats seem more likely to want to expend treasure for humanitarian reasons, but many of them are more hesitant to use force for any reason, so that clouds the equation. Many liberals I know were enthusiastically in support of Clinton's interventions in the former Yugoslavia, though some of the leftier lefties are even against that one. The right was mostly against it, on the grounds that we had no national interest there...which, again, makes them seem like "realists." But then comes Gulf War Episode II: The Phantom Menace, and we have conservatives talking about taking out Saddam for humanitarian reasons, and liberals often seeming...well...often seeming unimpressed by those considerations. Why? The obvious explanation is that they didn't believe that we were going to war for humanitarian reasons--talk of democratization only came to the fore after the WMD and al Qaeda/9/11 justifications fell through. The response to that, though, seems to be: even if the administration didn't go for humanitarian reasons, it would still be good that we went so long as there are humanitarian reasons for going...even if those reasons didn't move the administration. But then I suppose the response is: but the likely humanitarian gains in this case were not large enough to warrant the risk--and the certain costs, including opportunity costs--of going in.
So, anyway, my question is something like this: what conditions must be met for an ideal intervention according to the two different parties? Or what are some examples? Ignoring WWII, I think we could say that Kosovo was close to being an ideal intervention from the perspective of many Democrats...and I think Rwanda would have been such an intervention if we had gone. Does that seem right? And what would an ideal intervention be like according to Republicans?
That's sloppy, but I hope you get the point.
posted by Winston Smith at
8:09 PM
5 Comments:
The parties have largely swapped places, the neo-cons being the joker in the deck. Neo-cons are idealists, not realists. Or fans of abstract thinking, not realpolitik.
Wm. F. Buckley, altho circumspect, is pretty much against the Iraq war. He's a non-neo-conservative.
I think neo-conism may already be in a grave in Baghdad, a flare-up, a one-shot deal. Bush was sympathetic, but not a neo-con himself, and I think the conduct of post-Iraq foreign policy (Iran, N. Korea) is showing a regression to the mean for the GOP.
What it would take to unsheath the sword for Democrats again, I dunno. I think there's a Kantian ideal floating around that the only "good" act is one you don't personally benefit from. But, per Somalia and Black Hawk Down, I don't believe a long hard slog is in the cards for any cause, no matter how worthy and selfless.
Somalia is flaring up again, I see, perhaps the next home of al-Qaeda. Not surprising. Clinton was right, of course. And wrong. I expect nothing else from politics and politicians.
One problem with "we're in Iraq for humanitarian reasons" is that there are a lot of places where the same amount of effort could have produced far greater humanitarian results. Of course, even in Iraq, the same effort applied competently could have produced greater results as well... The point is that there are plenty of places in which people are far worse off than they were in Hussein's Iraq. Given limited resources and several humanitarian crises, it would have made sense -- if one were interestede in humanitarian efforts -- to have applied the resources where they would have done the most good.
True, James. This is why people and particularly politicians monomaniacally "stay on message" these days.
I was particularly interested in Philosoraptor's post on critical thinking, but didn't quite know where to start, since it was so comprehensive on the subject of clear thought and resulting discussion. How do we deal with disagreement? Where do we start? How do we keep it going fruitfully without flak (anti-aircraft fire, shot up in the hope of hitting something) becoming the discussion itself?
If we may attempt to get at arm's length from our partisanship (on this issue, and all "issues") in the interest of critical thinking, let me say that laundry lists are confusing. Bush's and Waxman's, to start.
I watched the OJ trial and heard everything 24/7 here in Los Angeles. The prosecution lost the trial because they took every piece of evidence, good, bad and indifferent, and presented it to the jury.
I saw the late Johnnie Cochran on a legal panel once and he said that although he had some objections to the DNA evidence testimony, he noticed the jury was falling asleep on it. He bit his tongue, and said it helped him win the case.
The DNA evidence was very good; the jury ignored it.
OJ's prosecutors proceded to present every scrap of evidence, even the most unconvincing, even the "glove" presented by the poisoned-by-a-racist-remark Mark Furman.
The Bushies did all that with their WMD presentation to the UN. Threw it all up against the wall, mindlessly.
Those, like those on the OJ jury who wanted to find flaw, found much. Even the reasonable people, if there were any, found flaw.
Because there were flaws.
OJ got off, Bush lied. That's how we do it in this courtroom society.
Please know I'm not examining truth claims here. Let me repeat that. Oh, never mind.
Perhaps Bush lied. Neither am I saying Bush didn't lie just because OJ was still guilty as fuck.
But I must add that if Saddam weren't an undisputed butcher, I don't think Bush pulls the trigger. I myself wouldn't have supported taking the bastard out. It was a key part of my confusing laundry list of why Saddam should be whacked. That part was clear.
No butchery, no war. But when a foreign government butchers its own people, I expect even worse at its hands. Assuaged my moral conscience completely.
Which is why I'm mellow on Iran, altho the prospects are frightening. They aren't butchering their own people, which is a sort of indication that we might find a way out of this. (N. Korea, not so sure.)
Trying to stay relevant to the blog: humanitarianism, Iraq, WMD evidence, critical thinking, the prevailing themes. I try to be a good guest and not hijack threads.
Lotta stuff there, but just want to note initially that the parties haven't switched places, b/c the Dems aren't "realists." Idealist interventionists in both parties have their cross to bear. Neocons in the GOP fight with the realists there, while liberal hawks fight the quasi-pacifist wing of the Dems.
Oh, and Kant doesn't say that an act can't be good if you benefit from it. Rather, he (rightly) notes that, to be good, the act can't *aim* at merely your own self-interest. Self-interest can be a happy side-benefit, though.
Once again, WS, thanks for the correction. I run into trouble when I try to argue formally, and I've confessed I know little than what I've cribbed of Kant, who is an estimable fellow. My college truly sucked. Nobody on staff like you, and I mean that.
It is good that one would argue that way, that not only one's self-interest is concerned, but a greater "good" observed as well.
Some would call that seeking to be just.
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home