A Weblog of Centrist Voices in American Politics
|
|
|
A Weblog of Centrist Voices in American Politics | |
|
July 05, 2004A Centrist Foreign PolicyTutakai asks an interesting fundamental question regarding centrism as a political philosophy. We tend to have a reasonably well-defined identity in the areas of social and economic policy, but what about foreign policy? Is there such a thing as a centrist foreign policy? He deals with it on a conceptual level in his first post. He makes some clarifications in his second post, and promises a third with analyses of specific foreign policy issues. I read his first post last week, and immediately jotted out some thoughts of my own regarding one specific issue -- the Iraq war. I didn't manage to finish that post -- it ran longer than I expected -- but I will try to do so this week. I have to say, personally, that I find Tutakai's knowledgeable and clearly reasoned approach to centrism to be exceptionally valuable. I predict he will do a great deal to build an intellectual and factual underpinning to this movement that we're all trying to push along. Take a few moments to read through his stuff. Posted by William Swann at July 5, 2004 07:05 PMComments
My first topic area was also Iraq. :) I look forward to comments. Posted by: Tutakai at July 6, 2004 12:06 AMAt one level at least, it's simple. It has always stuck with me that a study of game theory has shown that the simple strategy of tit-for-tat is very often optimal. My take is that tit-for-tat is in a sense a strategy for teaching the golden rule. And I think that on the most general, simple level, that's what a moderate foreign policy should aim for. You don't trangress first, but you meet transgressions immediately and forcefully. The simple idea is to foster cooperation and fair treatment and minimize instances of violent disagreement and the accompanying lose-lose spiral. IMO, the majority of people seem to get this, again, in the simple, general sense. Of course the devil-in-details comes out because people difffer over what constitutes a single discrete response. Some of us view the Iraq invasion as a continuation of the response to 9/11, while others view afghanistan as the response, and Iraq as a second and greater violent response, 2 tits for one tat, as it were. I expect the US will come around to a moderate foreign policy view, simply because our resources dictate that our current policy may not be sustainable. If it were to happen, it might in fact be the best outcome of the current conflicts,that the US and hopefully its citizenry becomes more committed to ongoing active engagement as opposed to a pendulum always swinging between navel gazing disinterest and obnoxious in-your-face engagement. It is an open question whether, in the face of increased globalization, the US will soon or ever again be able to afford the luxury of the inwardly directed navel-gazing that we once took for granted and to which most of the GP yearns to return. Posted by: bk at July 6, 2004 09:04 AMCentrism/moderation isn't the key to good foreign policy. Clinton wasn't a moderate in this arena whatsoever. He was an inclusionist. That's the key. Posted by: carla at July 6, 2004 01:36 PM |
Archives
March 2006
February 2006 January 2006 December 2005 November 2005 October 2005 September 2005 August 2005 July 2005 June 2005 May 2005 April 2005 March 2005 February 2005 January 2005 December 2004 November 2004 October 2004 September 2004 August 2004 July 2004 June 2004 May 2004 April 2004 March 2004 February 2004 January 2004 December 2003 November 2003 October 2003 September 2003 August 2003 July 2003 June 2003 May 2003 April 2003
Recent Entries
Dubai Out
Why So Long Between Democracies? Round One, Centrism Rock Lobster? Blackwell Releases "Worst-Treated" List "IRV" used in Burl., VT for mayor election. Great idea! Random Thread Election 2006: Round One A Proper Multiculturalism Bush proposes line item veto act - what's changed?
|
