Since its emergence in the middle of the twentieth century, the American Empire has been fueled by the search for an enemy.
Hey folks, Derek here with a word on comments/questions. As with other FX posts, comments will be open here for subscribers. The way these will work for Daniel's posts, in order to spare him having to make repeated trips into the comments section, is like so: if you have questions on anything in this column, drop it here. Daniel will check back in two weeks (so September 21 in this case) to respond and then the comments will be closed after that. His post will remain pinned at the top of the FX home page until then for easy access. Thanks!
It seems that a leftist foreign policy is going to run up against a quandary of liberal interventionism. You might call it the Rwanda/Libya paradox. There will be pressure to go in militarily to stop certain atrocities (like in Rwanda). However, the consequences of America stomping all over a bunch of foreigner’s intricate socio-political problems ends up creating conditions as bad or worse than what we went in to stop (like in Libya). How would a leftist foreign policy deal with that? If the answer is diplomacy, what course of action, if any, would we follow if that fails?
A related, but contrasting problem is that if a more humane foreign policy involves significant US restraint and draw down, is it really better to let revisionist powers displace our hegemony in their region? I’d be concerned that may increase suffering for regions that would then have an even more illiberal hegemon to deal with.
Don't forget that a significant portion of the usa ruling class wanted to do business with Hitler and saw the Soviet Union as the bigger threat.