Hey, Derek here. As with Daniel's previous column we're going to open a two-week window for any questions, so he'll be available to respond on (or before) October 27. After that we'll close the thread. Again as before, his piece will remain pinned to the FX home page for easy access. Thanks!
Great piece. I think leftists have generally done a solid job sketching out the parameters of a domestic policy agenda (e.g. Medicare for All, Green New Deal, all of Bruenig's stuff) but have been woefully inadequate when it comes to foreign policy and IR more generally.
Would love to hear your perspective on what such an agenda might look like and what any nascent leftist approaches to IR could or do look like.
Quick question, from this quick precis it looks realisim in IR has an almost reductive emphasis on military threats and national (I guess read regime) survival.
I was wondering, given that as you mention, these are being overtaken by long term supranational threats (obviously climate change, biocollapse, killer robots, pandemics, indidious propoganda, transnational oligarchs, corruption etc) where realists stand on this?
Are you then proposing that given their influence they should be encouraged to be less pessemistic, to look beyond their narrow focus or that policy makers should ignore them altogether as anachronistic?
I think this is the key question, Piers, but is going to be very difficult to answer. As Daniel said in the piece,
"In the coming years, leftists will have to promote their own particular approach to international affairs that incorporates the insights of realism with the universal goals of socialism. This is not an easy task and will require serious thought, debate, and discussion—the exact thing we’re promoting here at Foreign Exchanges."
I think of international relations through a realist lens, but I too hit this brick wall of what the US should do when faced with a future Rwanda-like genocide, fighting climate change or letting revisionist powers replace us in our spheres of influence as we (ideally) pull back.
Basically, realists respond to these threats by saying that they're the newest articulations of historical great power politics that don't fundamentally alter their view of the world. Just like the machine gun influenced great power relations, realists claim, so too will killer robots, etc.
In terms of structural conditions like climate change, realists, I imagine, would say that great powers need to take account of these changes because they will absolutely threaten their ability to survive. But again, this likely wouldn't change their fundamental assumptions.
In my opinion, realists (and everyone) should be less pessimistic about IR. As I said in the piece, it's rarely the 1930s, and it's possible to cooperate more seriously than realists propose. But I do think they have some insights that must be taken seriously.
Hey, Derek here. As with Daniel's previous column we're going to open a two-week window for any questions, so he'll be available to respond on (or before) October 27. After that we'll close the thread. Again as before, his piece will remain pinned to the FX home page for easy access. Thanks!
Great piece. I think leftists have generally done a solid job sketching out the parameters of a domestic policy agenda (e.g. Medicare for All, Green New Deal, all of Bruenig's stuff) but have been woefully inadequate when it comes to foreign policy and IR more generally.
Would love to hear your perspective on what such an agenda might look like and what any nascent leftist approaches to IR could or do look like.
Thanks! I agree with all of this. I’ve begun to sketch out what a leftist FP might look like in articles found here: http://danielbessner.com/popular-writing/
Hi there, great stuff as always.
Quick question, from this quick precis it looks realisim in IR has an almost reductive emphasis on military threats and national (I guess read regime) survival.
I was wondering, given that as you mention, these are being overtaken by long term supranational threats (obviously climate change, biocollapse, killer robots, pandemics, indidious propoganda, transnational oligarchs, corruption etc) where realists stand on this?
Are you then proposing that given their influence they should be encouraged to be less pessemistic, to look beyond their narrow focus or that policy makers should ignore them altogether as anachronistic?
or a.n.other, you've missed the point piers, obviously!
I think this is the key question, Piers, but is going to be very difficult to answer. As Daniel said in the piece,
"In the coming years, leftists will have to promote their own particular approach to international affairs that incorporates the insights of realism with the universal goals of socialism. This is not an easy task and will require serious thought, debate, and discussion—the exact thing we’re promoting here at Foreign Exchanges."
I think of international relations through a realist lens, but I too hit this brick wall of what the US should do when faced with a future Rwanda-like genocide, fighting climate change or letting revisionist powers replace us in our spheres of influence as we (ideally) pull back.
Hi Piers and Grant,
Basically, realists respond to these threats by saying that they're the newest articulations of historical great power politics that don't fundamentally alter their view of the world. Just like the machine gun influenced great power relations, realists claim, so too will killer robots, etc.
In terms of structural conditions like climate change, realists, I imagine, would say that great powers need to take account of these changes because they will absolutely threaten their ability to survive. But again, this likely wouldn't change their fundamental assumptions.
In my opinion, realists (and everyone) should be less pessimistic about IR. As I said in the piece, it's rarely the 1930s, and it's possible to cooperate more seriously than realists propose. But I do think they have some insights that must be taken seriously.
All best, and thanks for reading and responding!
Daniel