Question: Who are the big thinkers in foreign policy today?vanden Heuvel: I think there are thinkers who are on the fringes of power, particularly in the economic foreign policy area. For example, like Joseph Stiglitz is someone who thinks broadly about both the interconnection of economic and foreign policy, and he is someone who I had hoped would be in the Obama administration. There are people like Andrew Bacevich, again an interesting thinker who understands the limits of military power in the 21st Century. There are people like Ben Barber who also understand the interdependence of the world in ways that don’t get expressed fully at the highest levels of our government. But, in general, there are many smart foreign policy thinkers, international thinkers, who aren’t considered hard headed enough to be in government. Hard headed, I mean, you know, this idea that you’re tough. I’ve always thought hard headed, you know, no ideas enter your head, but until we change the predicate of our foreign policy, which again I come back to, is so built, even with the election, the selection of the foreign policy national security team still reflects old think, in m mind. It doesn’t engage the changes in the world where the world, in some ways, has found its own bearings. For example, Latin America, or even the Middle East, or China and Russia and India, they haven’t been that wedded or subservient to American power or might in these last eight years. They have moved on to form their own regional coalitions, to develop their own foreign policy, and we would do well to rejoin the international community as one of many, not just, not the superpower, but understand that we would be better as a partner in a constructive way and not come in as the, you know, we are the leader of a new world, bearing hope and freedom. Humility is in order.
Discuss
Luke Allen on March 8, 2009, 7:39 PM
While others still hope for power where women have no right to vote and the death of America?
Humility? If America was humble enough to realize we can’t pay for the worlds social ills millions more would die than already do.
Dieter Heinrich on April 3, 2009, 2:12 PM
Thank you. Well said. What a refreshing voice. (Of course, it goes without saying you’re a communist man-hater. )
As a non-American observer, I find it curious that average Americans on the Right will believe their government domestically to be mendacious, controlling, conniving, conspiratorial, incompetent and arbitrary — then will deny deny deny that American foreign policy is anything other than principled, just and benevolent toward the world.
And as Katrina probably knows, anyone who disagrees is a commie pinko fascist lefty liberal, and probably a tree-hugging eco-Nazi to boot.
Above we have Exhibit 3856724982, Luke Allen, implying that America has been paying for the world’s social ills. How charmlessly naïve. The United States on a per capita basis pays almost nothing toward the world’s social problems. And what it gives doesn’t compensate for the brains and talent it sucks out of the rest of the world. Meanwhile, the US has gotten a bazillion dollar free ride from its dollar being the world’s reserve currency. It wouldn’t be hard to make the case that the US is not only ungenerous, it is the world’s biggest freeloader.
It’s foreign policy consists of making sure no one can change this rigged game, especially if it might obligate the US to play by the rules that it enforces on others. It has spent decades undermining international organizations and treaties. It doesn’t even pay its legally-obliged dues to the United Nations. What it does do very generously is supply weapons all around. Is that is what Allen meant?
Humility indeed.
Add a Comment
You must be logged in to comment. Log in or Register