This is Mike A's Typepad Profile.
Join Typepad and start following Mike A's activity
Join Now!
Already a member? Sign In
Mike A
Recent Activity
I've read the Fukuyama book - and I like it. As Danny Finkelstein now says, it's definitely the source for the speech. Read it - it's excellent.
1 reply
Meat on the bones? From wikipedia: Fukuyama's current beliefs include: the US should use its power to promote democracy in the world, but more along the lines of what he calls realistic Wilsonianism, with military intervention only as a last resort and only in addition to other measures. A latent military force is more likely to have an effect than actual deployment. The US spends more on its military than the rest of the world put together, but Iraq shows there are limits to its effectiveness. The US should instead stimulate political and economic development and gain a better understanding of what happens in other countries. The best instruments are setting a good example and providing education and, in many cases, money. The secret of development, be it political or economic, is that it never comes from outsiders, but always from people in the country itself. One thing the US is good at is the formation of international institutions. These would combine power with legitimacy. But such measures require a lot of patience. [citation needed] In an essay in the New York Times Magazine in 2006 that was strongly critical of the invasion [5], he identified neoconservatism with Leninism. He wrote that the neoconservatives: "...believed that history can be pushed along with the right application of power and will. Leninism was a tragedy in its Bolshevik version, and it has returned as farce when practiced by the United States. Neoconservatism, as both a political symbol and a body of thought, has evolved into something I can no longer support." He also announced the end of the "neoconservative moment" and argued for the demilitarization of the war on terrorism: "[W]ar" is the wrong metaphor for the broader struggle, since wars are fought at full intensity and have clear beginnings and endings. Meeting the jihadist challenge is more of a "long, twilight struggle" whose core is not a military campaign but a political contest for the hearts and minds of ordinary Muslims around the world. If he has distanced himself from the label of neoconservatism, he remains indebted to Leo Strauss, purported father of neoconservatism, for much of the theoretical basis of his political economics. In Our PostHuman Future he takes a Straussian stance, defending a classical doctrine of natural right. He says his argument is Aristotelian and that Aristotle argued, in effect, that human notions of right and wrong--what we today call human rights--were ultimately based on human nature.
1 reply
I think people should read the Fukuyama book. It is very compelling - and is about making a new 'brand' for reputable neo-con thinking. Some of the things which Cameron is hot on within the speech - yet fuzzy about - are better explained in the book. This is really a reintroduction of Fukuyama and Strauss into the Tory canon. I don't like pretence that it is something new to avoid the embarassment of endorsing an anti-war thinker, but we should be open about it. I am Fukuyamaite - and glad Dave is too!
1 reply
I have to see I agree with Guido's reading of it. It is just 'After the Neo-Cons' with the conclusion changed! The 'new mulitlateralism' is a commitment to lots of alliances of different sizes rather than a pro-UN stance (which Fukuyama does not have). The real name for the doctrine, btw, is 'Realistic Wilsonianism'.
1 reply