The double standard on the part of “realists,” flows out of an unstated single standard: they believe in isolationism (or “restraint”) and will make whatever arguments appear useful for that purpose, regardless of whether or not there’s any consistency. They don’t care about the success or failure of nation building, nor do they care about the virtues or lack thereof of the Ukrainian people. They want America to do less in the world and they believe America’s extroverted presence has been bad for the world and for America. Which is cause and which is effect will vary from individual to individual.
Another example of this debate is Egypt. Let's just say that El Sisi and his government are not exactly Madisonian but do we want a return of the Muslim Brotherhood? My simple question, which contains a very complex answer, is whether a given foreign policy is in America's interests. Being part of TPP certainly was and Trump was wrong to leave it. I believe arming the Ukrainians to the teeth is in our interests and resisting Orbanism is as well. I however disagree with the Buchananist charge that being a force abroad means trying to be the world cop. We did not intervene in Rwanda despite the horrors of the 90s. Nor did we in a western hemispheric conflict between Peru and Ecuador.
I realize that my position is parochial and even jingoistic. But having seen the wrong entanglements, I search for a principle to dictate the right ones.
The double standard on the part of “realists,” flows out of an unstated single standard: they believe in isolationism (or “restraint”) and will make whatever arguments appear useful for that purpose, regardless of whether or not there’s any consistency. They don’t care about the success or failure of nation building, nor do they care about the virtues or lack thereof of the Ukrainian people. They want America to do less in the world and they believe America’s extroverted presence has been bad for the world and for America. Which is cause and which is effect will vary from individual to individual.
Another example of this debate is Egypt. Let's just say that El Sisi and his government are not exactly Madisonian but do we want a return of the Muslim Brotherhood? My simple question, which contains a very complex answer, is whether a given foreign policy is in America's interests. Being part of TPP certainly was and Trump was wrong to leave it. I believe arming the Ukrainians to the teeth is in our interests and resisting Orbanism is as well. I however disagree with the Buchananist charge that being a force abroad means trying to be the world cop. We did not intervene in Rwanda despite the horrors of the 90s. Nor did we in a western hemispheric conflict between Peru and Ecuador.
I realize that my position is parochial and even jingoistic. But having seen the wrong entanglements, I search for a principle to dictate the right ones.