Comments on: The Problems with Universalism

By: Kevin H

Kevin H — Mon, 30 Jun 2008 22:17:23 +0000

I guess I’m a tad of both. I’m ok with particular solutions to particular problems, but I also hope that one of the benefits of any agreement will be increased interaction between the two groups, which will help remove the differences between those groups. Maybe you could also describe my stance as a "soft sell" universalist.

By: John

John — Mon, 30 Jun 2008 21:59:13 +0000

I agree that we should be more cautious before "exporting" our political system and values. But at the same time, you should also be little more cautious about entirely rejecting the idea that "American" ideals (freedom, justice, etc.) are universal. Granted, there are significant obstacles to the spread of those ideals in places like Iraq or Afghanistan. But, historically, many of the people who claimed that democratic ideals could never be transplanted into a given foreign land have been wrong. Germany, Japan, and South Korea are the most prominent examples of modern states that arose out of the "transplanting" of American/Western values, and in each situation there were many who declared that those values were entirely incompatible with the native culture. These objections can’t be easily argued against, even with the benefit of hindsight, except to say that they were clearly wrong. And while it’s easy to point to differences between those nations and, for example, Iraq (no sectarian tensions, no loyalties divided between tribes/coreligionists/government), it’s important to keep in mind that the arguments against universalism seemed just as strong when the debate was over the Germans, the Japanese, and the Koreans.

By: Michael van der Galien, Editor-in-Chief

Michael van der Galien, Editor-in-Chief — Mon, 30 Jun 2008 15:16:06 +0000

Christine; not necessarily. It has to be kept in mind that, in the long term, dictators often produce societies that hate the West. At least, as long as the West is supportive of the dictator (out of ‘realistic’ motivations). Realism, then, isn’t as simple as that; you can be a realist in the short term, but be an idiot when it comes to the long term.

Also, I’m not completely arguing against freedom, etc. In some societies freedom will most certainly be in the West’s interest, in other societies ‘freedom’ will be in our interest, but it will be a different kind of freedom than we’re used to, and in again others it is most definitely not in our interest.

You have misread my post if that’s what you believe. No; I am a realist, with some universalism tendencies. My post was to point out that having Universalism as your basic, core foreign policy philosophy is unwise. Not that it’s wrong to have universalist tendencies.

By: C Stanley

C Stanley — Mon, 30 Jun 2008 14:04:44 +0000

I think the majority of Americans lean more toward the universalist side, but not necessarily supporting use of military force to acheive the goal of ‘the march of freedom’. But American exceptionalism pretty much dictates the idea that we have some obligation to ‘evangelize’ our values. And really I think that’s mostly true and it does relate to stability and security, because there’s no stability unless people can have a reasonable degree of freedom and autonomy, unless the stability is maintained by the opposite situation of dictatorship (which we have a moral obligation to oppose, IMO.)

MvDG iterates the traditional conservative hawk position, that military intervention is for direct threats to our security and not for promoting free societies elsewhere. There are a couple of problems with a pure line of that reasoning though; first, that in order to prevent some imminent threats, you end up having to use containment strategies that prop up dictators (which I’ve already said I believe is immoral, and aside from that there are pragmatic problems too when the enemy of our enemy sometimes turns on us.) And the second problem is what to do after one defeats an enemy if it comes to that. Leaving a power vacuum only invites new problems, so we’re left with the two options again: support a thug who’ll rule with an iron fist (and is controllable by us) or try to do nation building and foster a democracy that will be friendly to us and nonthreatening to the regional stability.

By: Michael van der Galien, Editor-in-Chief

Michael van der Galien, Editor-in-Chief — Mon, 30 Jun 2008 13:48:04 +0000

Well, but then there’s the ‘what would you do?’ question of course Michael. I’m pretty realistic, but I’m also in favor of destroying threats to the West and its allies. For instance; Iran. If necessary, the West should use force against the Ayatollahs. They pose a threat, a serious one even; both to the interests of the West in the Middle East and directly to the West.

Furthermore, as indicated in the post, I wasn’t going to spend a whole lot of time talking about whether or not he was right when he wrote that Obama is a realist whereas McCain is not. I think that both men are universalists, at least to a large degree.

Additionally, two people can be ‘realists’ but disagree very strongly about specific policies. I can call Obama weak on foreign policy - I think he is. Not because he’s too idealistic persée but because he’s too unwilling to use force and to recognize threats for what they are.

Universalists would see using force as a means to change the world (into America’s image). A realist, however, can simply see force as a means to take out a threat.

This is why a Realist can sometimes agree with a fellow Realist on a specific policy or problem while disagreeing with a Universalist, but also the other way around.

By: Michael Merritt

Michael Merritt — Mon, 30 Jun 2008 13:25:50 +0000

I agree. When dealing with foreign nations, you need to understand their culture and how they operate. I had a professor in college who was a former State Department official who understood that very well. The Bush administration, and U.S. administrations in general don’t understand it very well.

That’s possibly why Obama gets called weak on defense. Having a unique perspective on other culture compared to other candidates, having lived it for several years, he simply thinks in that way.

Yet, even he is not alien to military force when needed, as shown by a few statements he’s gotten heat on.