Strawman
Cernig at Newshoggers has posted a critique of McCain’s proposal for a “league of democracies” to supplement the diminishing returns of the bloated United Nations. In his critique, however, Cernig embraces a classic strawman technique, ascribing a belief to McCain supporters that none of them actually embrace:
But here’s the rub - what happens when the League of Democracies tries to impose its authority on a non-democracy and the latter says it doesn’t recognise the authority of a body it hasn’t been invited to send representatives to and has no voice at?
We bomb them?
If Cernig were to step outside of his relentlessly partisan world (where nothing positive can ever be said about any Republican and no criticism can ever be tolerated of a Democrat except for being too weak in their anti-Republicanism) for a few moments, he might have time to learn the lesson that has to be constantly reinforced to generation after generation of foreign policy students — there are more tools in the foreign policy toolbox than just military force.
McCain’s proposal is specifically not an embrace of military force, in fact. His proposal is explicitly institutionalist, something that foreign policy liberals (note: the meaning of “liberal” in foreign policy terms has little if any relationship to the mean of “liberal” in American politics — another nuance that Cernig seems to have overlooked in his desire to blast Kevin Sullivan) have placed at the core of their strategy ever since the end of World War II. There is simply no basis for Cernig’s assumption that the organization would exist solely to authorize military attacks.
If we are ever to begin to reconstruct the Cold War-era consensus that was rent asunder by the ham-handed foreign policy of the Bush administration, critics from the left will need to stop exaggerating and misrepresenting those they disagree with and start engaging their actual arguments.
Jason, this might be the funniest thing you’ve ever written. Two classics:
1) "Cernig embraces a classic strawman technique, ascribing a belief to McCain supporters that none of them actually embrace"
Really? Not John Bloton, N-Pod, Michael Rubin? The first of those told the CPAC crowd he supported McCain because the senator is “stronger” on Iran, and more conservative than Bush, whom Bolton described as too “moderate.” And who can forget "bomb, bomb, bomb Iran?"
2) "If we are ever to begin to reconstruct the Cold War-era consensus that was rent asunder by the ham-handed foreign policy of the Bush administration, critics from the left will need to stop exaggerating and misrepresenting those they disagree with and start engaging their actual arguments."
Really? The way to repair the harm done by the Bush years is for liberals to be nicer when arguing with those who cheerled for for him all those years?
Too funny.
Regards, C
Not nicer, Cernig. Honest.
Your criticisms and ascriptions were directed at Kevin and Michael. And they were premised upon grossly inaccurate assumptions about what Michael and/or Kevin actually believe. In short, you make the classic Glenn Greenwald error of assuming that anyone and everyone that you disagree with about anything in the world fits into the huge category of “neocon” where only bombing exists. You inductively draw upon a demonic image of Podhoretz and assume that everyone who is even slightly hawkish on foreign policy is exactly the same. Its just really bad logic and dishonest debating.
As long as "liberals" (a term that you still show no comprehension of in the non-domestic politics sense) embrace dishonesty as a debating tactic, they will continue to inflame rather than inform and will continue to inhabit only the margins of the overarching debate. You marginalize yourselves when you act like this. No one wants to engage in a debate with you if you’re going to lie about what they do and do not themselves say.
I am sure that since I have disagreed with you and criticized your post, you now (wrongly) assume that I am a member of the “bomb Iran club” too. But what you should do is question what leads you to make such assumptions in the first place. And maybe you should check if they are true before posting based on them.
What happens when the worlds largest Democracy doesn’t agree with the next US administration? What happens if India claims nonalignment, yet sides with USSR/Russia like it did during the Cold War.
side note, Jason
"the classic Glenn Greenwald error of assuming that anyone and everyone that you disagree with about anything in the world fits into the huge category of “neocon” where only bombing exists."
I have read pleanty of GG’s posts/articles, I have never noticed such a thing
You must not be reading the columns where Greenwald goes completely ballistic foaming at the mouth about "warmongers" and "neocons" who are allegedly setting up a police state whenever anyone proposes anything that Greenwald doesn’t personally agree with.
Oh wait. That’s all of them.