Say what you will about how fucking stupid American foreign policy is and has been, but it’s at least somewhat tempered its approach to socialist governments around the world.
Even in the Cold War, it was horrifically uneven. We were cozy with Yugoslavia and intermittently cooperative with the Arab socialist states (and Israel, which was dominated by the at-the-time-actually-left Labour coalitions), but couped the democratic governments of Mossadegh in Iran (who wasn’t even a socialist) and Allende in Chile for seeming a little too ‘red’.
Diving into Cold War history, you realize how much of the lines sold about realpolitik, liberal internationalism, and material conditions are all less important than their defenders present them as.
No one has a plan. There’s no rationality or structure to it. Personal quirks of low-ranking bureaucrats and cultural perceptions of political decorum are often as important as national-scale economic concerns.
It’s why democratic participation and awareness of foreign affairs is so goddamn important. Because otherwise, Mr. Empty Suit in a sinecure position during an unforeseen crisis who had a fucking cold the day a meeting was supposed to happen determines the fate of hundreds of thousands.
Totally. It’s absolutely terrifying (and occasionally, very reassuring) how much a single person can impact the entire planet.
To your point about voting and democratizing foreign policy: I tend to agree with you, but I also have some reservations. I think you can observe how easily things become overtly politicized and based, based on short-term political gains. Bureaucracy and individual expertise/institutional knowledge and inertia can safeguard against some shockwaves that occur based on shorter term democratic changes. I do think that there’s plenty of space for a technocratic approach to administration, where decisions are based on longer term thinking than a lot of representative democracies reward in the political sphere.
Just to be clear: I’m defending expertise within a democratic government’s institutions, not for opaque policies or a system without oversight. I’m just saying that just as I like to have scientists leading a county’s national science organizations, I like having foreign policy experts leading a county’s foreign policy organizations.
Oh, certainly. But an active and involved population can help steer the ship back on course by democratic means when any given foreign policy bureaucrat fucks up.
Yeah, it’s odd honestly, only after effectively defeating marxism-leninism globally has the U.S. started to accept socialism.
Though it probably could’ve been predicted, the Socialist and, to a varying degree, the Communist Parties (France and Italy), had a large amount of influence in the European democracies of the Cold War, and the U.S tolerated it, mostly because those parties upheld democracy. It makes sense that this attitude towards foreign policy would spread to how the U.S. treats any nation globally, not just Europe.
Indeed. That’s why I asked the question.
Say what you will about how fucking stupid American foreign policy is and has been, but it’s at least somewhat tempered its approach to socialist governments around the world.
Even in the Cold War, it was horrifically uneven. We were cozy with Yugoslavia and intermittently cooperative with the Arab socialist states (and Israel, which was dominated by the at-the-time-actually-left Labour coalitions), but couped the democratic governments of Mossadegh in Iran (who wasn’t even a socialist) and Allende in Chile for seeming a little too ‘red’.
Diving into Cold War history, you realize how much of the lines sold about realpolitik, liberal internationalism, and material conditions are all less important than their defenders present them as.
No one has a plan. There’s no rationality or structure to it. Personal quirks of low-ranking bureaucrats and cultural perceptions of political decorum are often as important as national-scale economic concerns.
It’s why democratic participation and awareness of foreign affairs is so goddamn important. Because otherwise, Mr. Empty Suit in a sinecure position during an unforeseen crisis who had a fucking cold the day a meeting was supposed to happen determines the fate of hundreds of thousands.
Shit’s almost never inevitable.
Totally. It’s absolutely terrifying (and occasionally, very reassuring) how much a single person can impact the entire planet.
To your point about voting and democratizing foreign policy: I tend to agree with you, but I also have some reservations. I think you can observe how easily things become overtly politicized and based, based on short-term political gains. Bureaucracy and individual expertise/institutional knowledge and inertia can safeguard against some shockwaves that occur based on shorter term democratic changes. I do think that there’s plenty of space for a technocratic approach to administration, where decisions are based on longer term thinking than a lot of representative democracies reward in the political sphere.
Just to be clear: I’m defending expertise within a democratic government’s institutions, not for opaque policies or a system without oversight. I’m just saying that just as I like to have scientists leading a county’s national science organizations, I like having foreign policy experts leading a county’s foreign policy organizations.
Oh, certainly. But an active and involved population can help steer the ship back on course by democratic means when any given foreign policy bureaucrat fucks up.
Yeah, it’s odd honestly, only after effectively defeating marxism-leninism globally has the U.S. started to accept socialism.
Though it probably could’ve been predicted, the Socialist and, to a varying degree, the Communist Parties (France and Italy), had a large amount of influence in the European democracies of the Cold War, and the U.S tolerated it, mostly because those parties upheld democracy. It makes sense that this attitude towards foreign policy would spread to how the U.S. treats any nation globally, not just Europe.