There are two thinkers who I believe provide their readers with more clarity, more honesty, and more truth than any other political authors I have encountered. They are --like all of us-- often wrong, and they are hardly allies, but they are brilliant political theorists with ideological clarity and consistency. It is appropriate that I devote my first substantive blog entry to these two heroes. You should know, the more I respect someone, the more I criticize them when I believe they are wrong.
You might already know that the two worldviews are completely different. Kissinger promotes a humble, multipolar approach to foreign policy, while Krauthammer is a nationalist unafraid to describe the unique greatness of America.
First, Kissinger and my internationalist tendencies:
As the man who coaxed Nixon into breathing life into a genuine international order, Henry Kissinger (Hanky Kissmaster to people who've never met him but feel close enough to use a silly nickname) is truly a man of consequence. Anyone who pictures a world without the petty confines of incipient nationalism should read and follow the work of the Kissmaster. His reflexive instinct to apologize for American unilateralism and broadly empower the international government has me somewhat less enthralled than his awesome nickname.
More recently, HK has become a proponent of an international political order that reflects the emerging globalized economic system. In his January 2009 article, 'A Chance for New World Order' he says, "In the end, the political and economic systems can be harmonized in only one of two ways: by creating an international political regulatory system with the same reach as that of the economic world; or by shrinking the economic units to a size manageable by existing political structures, which is likely to lead to a new mercantilism, perhaps of regional units."
Though I believe in as light of regulation as possible, Kissinger is correct in his implicit conclusion that the current nation-state derived regulatory model is both inadequate and easily manipulated. I do not believe his alternative of shrinking the economic units to measurable size is either advisable or likely. Economic disentanglement would truly be world-changing chaos. Assuming it continues or at least does not reverse, globalization brings the need to harmonize international legal systems to bring international actors under a clear jurisdiction. Internationalizing political systems will benefit truly competitive businesses as they are no longer required to adapt to specialized legal requirements in every nation: streamlining compliance costs, clarifying legal obligations, and reducing nationalist-based protectionism. Internationalism also benefits the workers of the world by putting them on even ground with their competition in other countries. This measure will disproportionately aide lower income workers in poorer countries, but as a person who believes that all global citizens should have the same opportunity to pursue happiness, I am more than happy leveling the playing field for the world.
Next, the venerable Charles Krauthammer: (Sorry can't improve on Krauthammer--combines KRAUT with the Hammer--sweet name. But when I want to endear myself I call him Uncle Chuck.).
This man's clarity of thought is only a partial explanation for his incredible persuasiveness. When it comes to domestic policy, he happens to be refreshingly thorough and veracious. Though consistent and understandable, his foreign policy reeks of neocon nationalism...more on that in a later post. This first introduction of my thoughts should focus on the numerous positive aspects of the man's worldview.
Here's Krauthammer on the interplay of American domestic policy and the International Order:
'There's much to be said for the decency and relative equity of social democracy. But it comes at a cost: diminished social mobility, higher unemployment, less innovation, less dynamism and creative destruction, less overall economic growth. This affects the ability to project power. Growth provides the sinews of dominance--the ability to maintain a large military establishment capable of projecting power to all corners of the earth. The Europeans, rich and developed, have almost no such capacity. They made the choice long ago to devote their resources to a vast welfare state. Their expenditures on defense are minimal, as are their consequent military capacities. They rely on the U.S. Navy for open seas and on the U.S. Air Force for airlift. It's the U.S. Marines who go ashore, not just in battle, but for such global social services as tsunami relief. The United States can do all of this because we spend infinitely more on defense--more than the next nine countries combined."
The Hammer is dead right, the United States is the reason free trade is possible, the reason disaster relief is possible, and the reason that internationalism can be imagined in our future. He's also right about economic growth in the United States versus Europe, and I strongly oppose what he labels social democracy. Give me business freedom for entrepreneurs. Let those who take successful risks reap the rewards, and let people choose how to interact without heavy-handed interference from a myriad of interwoven social regulations.
On the downside, Krauthammer is an unrepentant nationalist, a supporter of the financial bailout, and a man who rarely sympathizes with anything outside of conservative orthodoxy...making me skeptical of his ideas despite his obvious brilliance. Still, he is a rabid defender of the good that America has done in promoting the global economy, and global stability. Something with which I must agree. Internationalism would not be conceivable without the public goods of security and peace which are enforced primarily through American might.
To sum up briefly, Krauthammer is undoubtedly the most influential commentator in the United States (according to the Financial Times and myself), and for good reason. Kissinger is perhaps the most important internationalist who has ever lived, and a personal hero of mine. Still, nobody deserves to go unquestioned, and my skepticism applies even to them.
Most importantly, to make the next century an internationalist century, we must heed Kissinger's suggestion. 'The Sino-American relationship must be taken to a new level.' That means less reliance on America alone to provide international public goods. No matter how great America is or has been, it cannot continue to shoulder the burden of international security alone.
No comments:
Post a Comment