One of the interesting things about Walt & Mearsheimer’s book is their reliance on the left. Their citations overflow with lib-lefters, from Counterpunch to the Nation to J.J. Goldberg to Michael Massing. Leftwing rabbi Michael Lerner has embraced W&M. But Walt & Mearsheimer are realists. That means they’re not particularly idealistic about international behavior. The world is an anarchic place, in their view, and states will do anything to protect themselves. Israel got the bomb, now Iran wants it, that’s how international relations work…
Trita Parsi’s book on Iran marries the same two crowds. Former neocon Francis Fukuyama (who describes himself as an idealistic realist) was Parsi’s scholarly mentor. And Parsi was helped by Roane Carey, a longtime editor at the Nation. At Parsi’s event the other day, the panel included progressive M.J. Rosenberg, and Michael Hirsh, who certainly sounded liberal. In the audience was American Conservative editor Scott McConnell.
This is the new alliance in American intellectual life, and it is potentially transformative. Zbig Brzezinski, meet Barak Obama.
We have the neocons to thank for this entente. The neoconservatives are true radicals, revolutionaries (when it comes to other societies!). They made an alliance with neoliberals like Thomas Friedman and Kenneth Pollack and Hillary Clinton, partly because they come from the same meritocratic culture, and share a regard for Israel. The neocon columnist David Brooks said it best a few months back, when he said that there was going to be a political shuffling between the two parties, with globalist idealists going to one side and isolationist realists to the other.
The globalist revolutionaries got us into Iraq, of course; and Iraq is the glue for the realist/leftist coalition. All of us who opposed the war feel vindicated by the tremendous unending suffering it has caused. Even now, I know some globalists who will say, "Well Iraq might still turn out well…." They seem to me morally obtuse, indifferent to Arab lives. The left has lent its moral focus to the realists. Walt and Mearsheimer’s book is animated by a deep concern for Palestinian human rights. And maybe we leftists will learn hardheadedness from the realists.
US policy today is made by a sinister alliance of the military/industrial complex, the Lobby, and Wall Street finance as exemplified by Goldman Sachs (James Petras' new book _Rulers and ruled in the US empire_ presents GS as a part of the Lobby: link to bookmasters.com
)
In this context the only meaningful political distinction is between those who find this condition intolerable and those who don't.
The categories of left and right are as irrelevant as the hot-button social issues that have substituted for political debate in this country for 30 years. See Justin Raimondo's piece here:
http://www.bookmasters.com/clarity/b0033.htm
Sorry, this is the Raimondo link I meant to give above:
http://www.amconmag.com/2006/2006_08_28/article17.html
I don't see history or politics in such binary terms, "globalist idealists" vs "isolationist realists"
There is no such thing as a "realist". All analyses are colored by choice of and access to information, as well as prejudice.
There are ALWAYS multiple concerns at play, more than two. (Maybe there are rare occassions where politics is genuinely binary.)
There are strange bedfellows always. For example, its my impression that Phil regards civilism (vs either xenophobic form of nationalism) as worth his time to write and dialog about when it comes to Israel.
In seeking to intervene in some form, that is a form of "globalist idealism". In contrast, the same prospect (obviously much confused) of liberalism in Iraq and Iran is an intervention.
Palestine, Iraq, less so in Iran as they've "successfully" purged, are not binary. There are more than two players in each crisis.
That is what constructs much of the improbability of success in Iraq, militarily. It was definitely foreseeable, and represents one of the enormous negligences of foreign policy in American history. (Although there are MANY).
I would also add leftists and fascists in a tree K-I-S-S-I-N-G on the issue of Israel.
For what its worth, "anarchy" is an ideological term, that some of us regard as substantive in some sense. Its not equivalent to "chaos" or "random".
U.C. Berkeley Institute of International Studies has a video series of hour-long discussions with academics called "Conversations With History."
On Sept. 19 the guests were M&W. Still no fireworks, but it's considerably better than any of the NPR radio interviews.
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=1523862876725647697
I have visited more leftest sites in the last year than in the prior ten.
Ron Paul had an interesting proposition for Black Americans at the debate last night.
Yeah, you will loose your "goodies" from the government, but they really are not helping you very much anyway, and in exchange I will stop the government from putting 33% of all black males in jail for victimless drug crimes.
From the audience response I think many want to take that deal.
Which is worth more, having black males around in the community, or government hand-outs?
Left and Realist? Aren't they fighting a phantom lobby? The real Israel lobby is not the right wing AIPAC and gang, but the liberals. It is they that are the enablers for the fanatic policy toward Israel. In pretty much all political situations, you have a balance of one group for one thing and a counter group for another thing. It is not unexpected for the fanatical AIPAC to be fanatical, but where is the counterpart in the ideologically opposite end? There is none, because those same guys are in the same bed as AIPAC. Its as if NOW are in the same boat as the fetus throwing anti-abortion people, with absolutely no one bringing up the issue of pro-choice except for these fringe group that's not heard by the media or society.
I would not put the "new" fukayama on the side of the realists just yet.
Also, among intellectuals yes there is agreement on some issues, as both are generally anti war. but I can say as a pat Buchanan and Ron Paul fan , we get no respect from the left. Buchanan was virtually the only on on cable news pre iraq war to speak out against it, yet whenever i read a column about him on DU it always begins with "i can't believe i'm agreeing with Pat Buchanan" with at least ten posts about what a racist he is. Same with ron paul. Their war is against capitalism, not imperialism
"Their war is against capitalism, not imperialism."
Whether or not they distinguish between capitalism and imperialism, their war is most emphatically not against Zionism, which a generation of gatekeepers has taught them never to question.
To Mr. Weiss and his readers:
My name is Claire Brown and I'm a producer for I.N.N. World Report, one of only two independent TV news shows broadcasting each weekday in the U.S.
I interviewed Professors Walt & Mearsheimer on Sept. 18. I asked some tough questions, probably more directed from a "left" point of view than a Zionist perspective.
Some of the topics discussed were:
* Israel's role in the Iraq invasion
* Which presidential candidate would stand-up to the Israel Lobby (answer: none of the major ones)
* Walt & Mearsheimers' belief that the U.S. should come to Israel's defense if Israel were threatened
* A one state or two state solution to the Israeli – Palestinian conflict
* The effect of a U.S. or Israeli attack on Iran
I invite everyone to watch the interview at:
http://www.innworldreport.net/video_launcher.php?2007-09-25i
We also had on Daniel Ellsberg (whistle blower who exposed the Pentagon Papers) last week to discuss what he feels has been a coup in the U.S.
——————————————————————————
Nice job, Claire. Yours is the most hard-nosed interview I've seen to date. It's refreshing to see people attempting to discuss this without the kid gloves.
I'd also like to remind people of the U.C. Berkeley interview–
link to video.google.com
/>
Brava Claire Brown! Thank you.
An informative series of articles on the Iranian revolution and aftermath.
http://www.iranchamber.com/history/islamic_revolution/revolution_and_iran_after1979_1.php