30 July 2004
Reversal of Idealists and Realists
In reviewing In Defense of Globalization by Jagdish Bhagwati and Why Globalization Works by Martin Wolf in The Wall Street Journal of 6/24/04, Bruce Bartlett states “It is comically ironic, then, to see antiglobalists attack the World Bank and International Monetary Fund. Both institutions do more to impede true globalization than to encourage it; and though both were created to foster growth, they more often than not thwart it.” By financially suborning public sector dirigisme at the expense of the marketplace, they have obstructed the free allocation of resources to productive and beneficial uses in the developing world.
David Fromkin’s review of The Iraq War by John Keegan in The New York Times
Book Review of 6/20/04 made a similar point: “Keegan defines the argument about whether or not to attack Iraq as a split between idealists, who believe in a world free of warfare, and realists, who regard warfare as a normal and indeed inevitable part of international affairs. . . . These days it is the idealists who believe in overthrowing evil wherever it is found. And it is the realists who counsel going to war only in defense of the country’s vital interests.” That’s one way to describe the “Powell Doctrine.”
Conservative fundamentalists seek to attain an ideal state of goodness by any means, while progressives try to achieve realistic humanitarian goals using practical tactics. That’s probably as it should be. Other wrong-headed idealists use futile methods like vandalism to trumpet the cause of the world’s poor and powerless. They employ unrealistic impractical tactics to attack the Bretton Woods institutions, the World Trade Organization, multinational corporations and other symbols of resistance to the new and truly liberal framework that is transforming the global economy and politics. The information technology revolution has made entrepreneurship a key to rising standards of living around the world (cf. India); it has also induced intransigent governments to cede increasing portions of policymaking to individual initiative (cf. China).
The IT revolution has made it easier to organize and implement disruptions of international meetings. Terrorists have shown great skill in taking advantage of this. Realists can almost afford to ignore the misguided antiglobalization idealists who don’t accomplish much beyond making news headlines. However, ignoring terrorism has tragic consequences. Idealists dedicated to overthrowing evil, however they define it, are in danger of being locked in Manichean confrontation with each other. Realists, who favor survival and material well-being, will never convince either side to accept, or even tolerate its opponent’s metaphysics. The realists’ task is to lead the two fundamentalist sides to confine their vital interests within boundaries that do not overlap. This could be the roadmap for preventing violent conflict between radicals in opposing civilizations, not to mention neighboring religious and ethnic populations.
In reviewing In Defense of Globalization by Jagdish Bhagwati and Why Globalization Works by Martin Wolf in The Wall Street Journal of 6/24/04, Bruce Bartlett states “It is comically ironic, then, to see antiglobalists attack the World Bank and International Monetary Fund. Both institutions do more to impede true globalization than to encourage it; and though both were created to foster growth, they more often than not thwart it.” By financially suborning public sector dirigisme at the expense of the marketplace, they have obstructed the free allocation of resources to productive and beneficial uses in the developing world.
David Fromkin’s review of The Iraq War by John Keegan in The New York Times
Book Review of 6/20/04 made a similar point: “Keegan defines the argument about whether or not to attack Iraq as a split between idealists, who believe in a world free of warfare, and realists, who regard warfare as a normal and indeed inevitable part of international affairs. . . . These days it is the idealists who believe in overthrowing evil wherever it is found. And it is the realists who counsel going to war only in defense of the country’s vital interests.” That’s one way to describe the “Powell Doctrine.”
Conservative fundamentalists seek to attain an ideal state of goodness by any means, while progressives try to achieve realistic humanitarian goals using practical tactics. That’s probably as it should be. Other wrong-headed idealists use futile methods like vandalism to trumpet the cause of the world’s poor and powerless. They employ unrealistic impractical tactics to attack the Bretton Woods institutions, the World Trade Organization, multinational corporations and other symbols of resistance to the new and truly liberal framework that is transforming the global economy and politics. The information technology revolution has made entrepreneurship a key to rising standards of living around the world (cf. India); it has also induced intransigent governments to cede increasing portions of policymaking to individual initiative (cf. China).
The IT revolution has made it easier to organize and implement disruptions of international meetings. Terrorists have shown great skill in taking advantage of this. Realists can almost afford to ignore the misguided antiglobalization idealists who don’t accomplish much beyond making news headlines. However, ignoring terrorism has tragic consequences. Idealists dedicated to overthrowing evil, however they define it, are in danger of being locked in Manichean confrontation with each other. Realists, who favor survival and material well-being, will never convince either side to accept, or even tolerate its opponent’s metaphysics. The realists’ task is to lead the two fundamentalist sides to confine their vital interests within boundaries that do not overlap. This could be the roadmap for preventing violent conflict between radicals in opposing civilizations, not to mention neighboring religious and ethnic populations.
Comments:
Post a Comment
