Our old friend Dr. Douglas is still blogging – GSGF interviews him here.
Inside, we glimpse the mind of this Burkean/”JudeoChristian” (a meaningless term)/global revolutionary.
I especially liked Burke’s emphasis on continuity in culture – on prescriptive authority found in a nation’s historical associations and traditions, and how such bases of authority formed a bulwark against revolutionary movements, and the rise of authoritarian leadership.I thus thought Burkean conservatism would provide excellent foundations for a traditionalist’s analyisis of poltics and world affairs.
The national interest historical defined has physical/economic security of the state can be very narrow. It can lead to isolationism for a great power. Today, if a “realist” national interest conception would return to favor, we’d “off-shore” our political-miltary responsiblities around the world, starting with Iraq, and then with a realignment of our basing overseas.
Yes, so true.
So then, why must the US bomb the world, destroy societies (organic beings in themselves), and murder hundreds of thousands at the loss of American blood and treasure?
GsGf – Wouldn’t that be ammoral or immoral to outsource America’s projection – or rejection of projection?
Dr Douglas – It’s not moral or immoral, but simply a choice on the appropriate use of our resources and power. Unfortunatly, “national interest” can be construed so narrowly as to be isolationist.
America historically in the indispensible great power. I think the world would be less free and stable of we adopted a “come home America” national interest foreign policy.
Because, “the world would be less free and stable”. Douglas then mentions that Darfur type massacres shouldn’t be allowed to occur, and this is really the issue: Douglas naively believes he knows what’s best for other societies, despite his being an outsider and a foreigner to their ways. Douglas, though outside the organic being of foreign societies, wishes to intervene and resolve their problems with his superior virtue and understanding. He is not acting in America’s best interests; he’s acting out of a misguided desire to help. That he has no duty to interfere and that he could make matters worse despite his best intentions both appear outside Douglas’s consideration.
Anguish about our divided world gave birth to the theory of convergence between leading Western countries and the Soviet Union. It is a soothing theory which overlooks the fact that these worlds are not at all developing into similarity; neither one can be transformed into the other without the use of violence. Besides, convergence inevitably means acceptance of the other side’s defects, too, and this is hardly desirable.