Random Bits and Pieces

I'm sitting here at work, the last week at the firm, in my $1000 hand tailored, Italian suit that I purchased last week for $300. Yeah, it's good to be in the suit Mafia. I had no reason to wear this suit today, but in Britain, you never need a reason to wear a suit. My mate the Roving Alcoholic and I both bought expensive suits on the cheap last week and I may buy another one this week. Not that I have a lot of money, mind you, I just think it's a good idea to have a couple suits (for interviews and whatnot) and now that my grand total is up to 1, I should probably supplement gray with another color. Of course, none of this has to do with anything aside from the fact that I'm pleased that I a) managed to get in good with the suit Mafia and worked that to my advantage and b) I look damn posh in my new suit. Plus, I'm quite well rested for a change so I'm in high spirits today.

Anyway, someone asked what a neo-liberal was. Good question. I was hesitant to use the label because just like "democrat" or "republican", labels imply a whole host of crap that I ain't a party to (well, I'm not a party to much of the Republican label these days, but that's neither here nor there). I will refrain from a lengthy opus of what a neo-liberal is or where it came from. Instead, I'll offer a brief summary, just realize it's a bit more complicated than what I'm offering.
The liberal tradition originates from President Woodrow Wilson's League of Nations proposition in the sense that there was a belief that international institutions have a strong role to play in the maintenance of international order. The League of Nations was seen as critical to strengthening linkages between states to minimize conflict, foster economic growth and prosperity, and address critical problems like poverty, disease, and famine. In short, the liberal tradition is exactly what failed in the Inter-War period between 1919 and 1939.

The reformation of liberalism led to neo-liberalism. In fact, neo-liberalism was a direct response to the realist critique that looked at WW2 and decided that the policies of appeasement and the naive belief that nations could be contained by an institution like the League of Nations was what enabled the war in the first place. Realists argued that nations always act in their own self-interests, thus, hard (military) power politics is necessary to preserve order. The US strategy during the Cold War was greatly influenced by this critique, for better or worse.

The neo-liberal tradition, however, combines some elements of both the liberal tradition (free trade and international institutions) with some of the tenets of the realist critique. For example, you'd be hard pressed to find a neo-liberal who would suggest rolling over to the Chinese on Taiwan. Instead, a policy of carrots and sticks is likely - we give you One China Policy, you open markets for US products. In sum, neo-liberalism is rooted in a belief in market economics and free trade which should be combined with effective international regimes and institutions aimed as promoting peace and prosperity for all. A tall order with a questionable legacy indeed.

What is clear, however, is that neo-liberals do not propose invading sovereign nations, taking over their governments, and rebuilding the country from the ground up. Not even the true realists (like Kagan) advocate that because even they know that the costs of such a strategy are extremely high and the rewards are extremely low. No, the neo-cons are their own unique brand of insanity that unfortunately (for realists) have drawn the Republican foreign policy establishment down a dangerous and ultimately untenable path. That's one of the reasons why the mainstream GOP defense of Iraq is so weak - a lot of those people would never have opened up pandora's box had they been in charge but party loyalty demands they support the administration, thus Iraq. And, yeah, I know people like Kagan are "independent" from the party. It's not one grand conspiratorial group. It's just easier to lump it together to make my point.

At any rate, the grand neo-con experiment seems to be spectacularly failing, so one can only hope that the end of "invasion politics" is nigh. That doesn't mean that the neo-liberals (think Clinton) are going to win the day in the IR debate, but recent history has not only discredited the neo-cons, it has also sparked considerable scholarship as to the nature of occupations and invasions (last summer's International Security, for example, had a fantastic article about why occupations fail). At the end of the day, all politics is process, so one can hope that the establishment can learn from the latest failure and move forward.

Government, however, is notoriously slow to change and I remain pessimistic. I'm in the process of reading a lengthy tome called A Problem From Hell which is written by Harvard professor Samantha Power and is about America's relationship to Genocide in the 20th century. It's a fantastic book, well written, incredibly informative. But one thing stands out - the US has consistently sacrificed the moral high ground for geostrategic (realist) reasons. From the Ottoman Turks, to the Nazis, to Pol Pot, and Saddam Hussein's gassing of the Kurds, US policy is noted mostly for ignoring, belittling, and doubting genocide. If that's any guide, I fully expect that at some point in the future, we'll have another Iraq on our hands. As one of my professor's said, "there's no ethics in foreign policy".

And that's about enough depressing sh*te for a rainy Monday morning.