You assert "...The last three quarters of a century of international relations has basically, unequivocally, been a failure...", I see them as a time where the U.S. did much more good than harm, and many problems solved. The Soviet, French and British empires largely disappeared; the standard of living in the developing world has improve…
You assert "...The last three quarters of a century of international relations has basically, unequivocally, been a failure...", I see them as a time where the U.S. did much more good than harm, and many problems solved. The Soviet, French and British empires largely disappeared; the standard of living in the developing world has improved in ways unimaginable at the start of the period (for instance, no one would have predicted that India would largely be free of periodic starvation years) and problems unforeseen that seemed insoluble (like AIDS in Africa) were addressed by a concerted international effort led by the U.S. Much of this was not inevitable or simply luck but due to the policies adopted by the strong.
And some problems that now are convulsing us are products of the successes over the past decades. China is example number one. Right now as best I can tell we are tied in knots because China is building very cheap electric cars that they want to export. I am trying to see the problem with this in a world that is frying.
Now the problems the world faces are long and daunting. But I think the past decades can easily be seen as a time when more times than not the U.S. acted for the good of the world, rather than in our narrow self-interest. That does not mean we did not do plenty of "bad" or self-serving actions. But on a net basis, I think the scales can be seen as favoring the U.S. as a actor looking for the common good, rather than completely self-serving; and even if one sees the balance tilted the other way, there are actions by the U.S. that should be placed in "acting for the greater good" side of the ledger.
I kind of misspoke here. When I wrote "international relations," what I meant was multi-lateral, internationalist relations of the UN's sort. (I just couldn't find an elegant shorthand for that.) Roosevelt really was hoping that that was what the post-war order would look like - a wise internationalist body. And that vision crumbled very quickly - just like the League of Nations did before it.
What DID work in terms of international relations was the Morgenthau vision and realpolitik. The US carrying out its national self-interest, accompanied by a very aggressive foreign policy, and in so doing containing Soviet imperialism and reaching some kind of a balance where either a nuclear exchange or World War III was in no one's interest. Obviously, there's a strong leftist critique of that, but I think it's harder to argue with the basic premise.
So, realpolitik does prevail - and for somebody like Morgenthau there's a clear line between realpolitik in the Cold War era and realpolitik as espoused by people like Thucydides. Nothing much changes - and states are required to flex their strength.
Political scientists (Morgenthau included) are forever trying to imagine a gentler way of constructing harmony internationally. Unfortunately, I don't think we've made any progress on that front.
You assert "...The last three quarters of a century of international relations has basically, unequivocally, been a failure...", I see them as a time where the U.S. did much more good than harm, and many problems solved. The Soviet, French and British empires largely disappeared; the standard of living in the developing world has improved in ways unimaginable at the start of the period (for instance, no one would have predicted that India would largely be free of periodic starvation years) and problems unforeseen that seemed insoluble (like AIDS in Africa) were addressed by a concerted international effort led by the U.S. Much of this was not inevitable or simply luck but due to the policies adopted by the strong.
And some problems that now are convulsing us are products of the successes over the past decades. China is example number one. Right now as best I can tell we are tied in knots because China is building very cheap electric cars that they want to export. I am trying to see the problem with this in a world that is frying.
Now the problems the world faces are long and daunting. But I think the past decades can easily be seen as a time when more times than not the U.S. acted for the good of the world, rather than in our narrow self-interest. That does not mean we did not do plenty of "bad" or self-serving actions. But on a net basis, I think the scales can be seen as favoring the U.S. as a actor looking for the common good, rather than completely self-serving; and even if one sees the balance tilted the other way, there are actions by the U.S. that should be placed in "acting for the greater good" side of the ledger.
Larry,
I kind of misspoke here. When I wrote "international relations," what I meant was multi-lateral, internationalist relations of the UN's sort. (I just couldn't find an elegant shorthand for that.) Roosevelt really was hoping that that was what the post-war order would look like - a wise internationalist body. And that vision crumbled very quickly - just like the League of Nations did before it.
What DID work in terms of international relations was the Morgenthau vision and realpolitik. The US carrying out its national self-interest, accompanied by a very aggressive foreign policy, and in so doing containing Soviet imperialism and reaching some kind of a balance where either a nuclear exchange or World War III was in no one's interest. Obviously, there's a strong leftist critique of that, but I think it's harder to argue with the basic premise.
So, realpolitik does prevail - and for somebody like Morgenthau there's a clear line between realpolitik in the Cold War era and realpolitik as espoused by people like Thucydides. Nothing much changes - and states are required to flex their strength.
Political scientists (Morgenthau included) are forever trying to imagine a gentler way of constructing harmony internationally. Unfortunately, I don't think we've made any progress on that front.
-Sam