Lies, damned lies and labels…

Posted By David Rothkopf Thursday, August 27, 2009 - 11:58 PM Share

I think Paul Wolfowitz performs a useful service by thoughtfully and systematically examining the underlying flaws in the current conception of "realism" -- the hype surrounding it and the "policies" associated with it. If only someone had more effectively done the same with neoconservatism -- which, of course, was neither new nor, as it was practiced by the Bush administration, remotely conservative. (How could anything so politically and militarily risky, fiscally wasteful, and seemingly allergic to any principle, be called "conservative"?)

Reading Wolfowitz's piece, I kept thanking Providence for giving me a concentration in English in college rather than say, political science. I actually was taught what words mean. (In fact, being an English major taught me that "political science" may be the humdinger of all oxymorons ... even if calling "realists" realists and "neoconservatives" neoconservatives comes pretty darn close.) Economists have their "lies, damned lies, and statistics" and clearly, political scientists have their "lies, damned lies, and labels."

It's not just "neocons" and "realists" of course who are mislabeled or falsely advertising themselves. There is nothing "conservative" about the reckless fiscal policies of "conservative" champions like Reagan or Bush, nothing "progressive" about the New Deal nostalgia of many on the left, nothing "pro-life" about abortion opponents who also use a misreading of the Second Amendment to allow them stock up on assault weapons, nothing "liberal" about folks who think the answer to everything is greater government control of people's lives. Say what you may about the underlying beliefs, the labels are meaningless.

That said, if we can stipulate the labels are primarily forms of branding and positioning that are as related to the underlying realities as Madison Avenue claims of the health-benefits of smoking in the middle of the last century, then we can move on to the more relevant policy questions raised by Wolfowitz. These turn not on whether "realists" are more realistic than other policymakers but rather on whether the "realism" peddled to the public actually holds water as an approach.

(Continue reading...)

Photo by Win McNamee/Getty Images

EXPLORE:BUSH ADMINISTRATION, POLITICS, U.S. FOREIGN POLICY

(5)

HIDE COMMENTS LOGIN OR REGISTER REPORT ABUSE

MOBAZZ

4:59 PM ET

August 28, 2009

Gimme a break

"In fact, I would argue that the vast majority of states are now so weak that they are much less influential than say the world's largest corporations on economic issues, the world's largest NGOs on key humanitarian issues, or the world's most notorious terror or criminal groups on security issues."

How about this label: Hilariously naive! This is what a concentration in English gets you. Political science would've been more useful Mr. Rothkopf.

DJROTHKOPF

6:09 PM ET

August 28, 2009

Right back at you, Mobazz...

So you think that the vast majority of states have more economic power than say, Exxon? The ability to deliver more devastating blows internationally than say, Hezbollah or Al Qaeda? Or the ability to do more to impact the world's global health needs than The Gates Foundation?

Really? Who do you think destabilized most of Colombia for the past forty years, a country or drug cartels? How many countries do you actually think have armies that are more than just local police forces? How many do you think have the ability to project real force beyond their borders? It's just a couple dozen at most.

Most of the prerogatives of states that they have enjoyed for the past 350 years are being eroded by progress. Trade liberalization has largely removed tariffs as a tool for most states, privatization has taken away control of much industry in many states, globalization has made borders irrelevant and constrained the ability to tax or even quantify commerce. The list goes on.

Are the largest states still very powerful? Of course. But there are probably 100-200 nonstate actors that are indisputably more globally influential than the smallest 100 or so states.

For more, see my next book, due out next year: "Super-citizens and Semi-states."

MOBAZZ

4:40 AM ET

August 29, 2009

Economic: We've just gone through the worst economic downturn since the great depression and who exactly saved us from outright catastrophe?

Human rights: Please tell me about the power that Amnesty Int and Human Rights Watch have. You're a great lover of Israel, what impact have those orgs had on that country's conduct over the years.

Int Security: How many states have groups like Al Qaeda or Hezballah been able to overthrow or gravely weaken? How many deaths around the world have they caused? An extremely minuscule number compared to that inflicted by state actors. States can cause regional and global wars; violent jihadists can only dream of that.

Certainly, non-state actors are much more powerful than they used to be but let's not get carried away.

NORWEGIAN SHOOTER

5:42 PM ET

August 31, 2009

I judged the 5 contestants on "scare" quotes...

and you got a FAIL, but only because of extra negative credit. Check it out.

ERIC C

12:55 AM ET

September 1, 2009

Nice to know there are other

Nice to know there are other english majors out there interested in international politics.

Eric C