What are the domestic political incentives to continue the GWOT? That Rhodes story illustrates what they *think* the incentives are but what if they’re wrong? It could very well be that the majority of the electorate doesn’t support endless occupation and liberal drone strikes, but it’s an issue that’s not as high on the radar as the economy, healthcare, etc. Meanwhile the supporters of the endless wars and engagements are simply the loudest voices in the room, and don’t actually represent a broad consensus.
Another incentive is the political pressure on presidents, especially Democratic ones, to look tough. And that pressure increases when one of them does something like withdraw troops from Afghanistan. But whether they're right to think they'd pay a huge political cost if they defied that pressure is another question.
I don't think they're right, and I think Biden has given us a test case. If Democrats don't lose the House or Senate in 2022 by a greater percentage than a normal loss for the incumbent's party in mid-terms, and if exit polling shows COVID-19 and economic issues were decisive factors (or even things like apprehension about so-called wokeism), we'll be able to see if there is any actual political cost or a bunch of sound and fury, signifying nothing.
Hi Bob, This comment pertains to all posts about TGWT. I'm reading (I'm disappointed to learn you no longer read books.) George Bernard Shaw, PYGMALION and THREE OTHER PLAYS (2004, 667 pages) and he has a lot to say about our current affairs. He wrote these words over 100 years ago. Which brings me to my point. I read your words of 20 years ago. I'm surprised that given your knowledge of Evo Psych that you still believe that mankind can change is behavior toward world governance. Your position hasn't changed. Mine has - to a strict realist one.
Back to Shaw. He wrote at the end of WW1, "Hegel was right ... we learn from history that men never learn anything from history." (516) [and] "Truth telling is not compatible with the defense of the realm." (518) [and this gem] "no less than twenty-three wars are at present being waged to confirm the peace ..." (514) [and this] "men who had become rich by placing their personal interests before those of the country, and measuring the success of every activity by the pecuniary profit ..." (500)
The whole of his work is brilliant.
The Pygmalion Effect (social psych) has it's limits. Ozzie Smith cannot become Babe Ruth and vice versa. No matter how much you want it so.
Anyway, I enjoy your posts and discussions. cheers
No less a realist than Hans Morgenthau said world government is entirely conceivable, depending on circumstances. So I wouldn't say a 'strict realist' position precludes belief in the possibility of world governance. And btw, at one point, millennia ago, the idea of deep allegiance to a nation state would have seemed inconceivable. Things change.
Yes, things change. I took a dive into Morgenthau and at first look I'd say I agree with his six principles. That nations behave like people and are driven by self interest, i.e. survival. And power facilitates that.
So, technology and communication (and war) means have changed, such that killing from a distance is far more advanced/easier/deadly than in Shaw's day. Also, there are far more people and nations today. But, "human nature" has not was my point.
With fewer people and fewer nations it should have been easier before to form a "rules based" world governing politic/order. It was attempted, but didn't work well. Why? Morgenthau gets into that and I agree - people lie. That's a big part of our nature.
I saw where later he was described as an "ethical idealist". That doesn't jive with my idea of "strict realism". However, I'm not trained in formal political science or philosophy - psychology and anthropology is my game. And I'd say, that hasn't changed either.
Btw, my last book, ELECTION 2016, has been critically acclaimed as a "thrilling discourse on power." You can read reviews here: https://www.markjabbour.com/
What are the domestic political incentives to continue the GWOT? That Rhodes story illustrates what they *think* the incentives are but what if they’re wrong? It could very well be that the majority of the electorate doesn’t support endless occupation and liberal drone strikes, but it’s an issue that’s not as high on the radar as the economy, healthcare, etc. Meanwhile the supporters of the endless wars and engagements are simply the loudest voices in the room, and don’t actually represent a broad consensus.
Another incentive is the political pressure on presidents, especially Democratic ones, to look tough. And that pressure increases when one of them does something like withdraw troops from Afghanistan. But whether they're right to think they'd pay a huge political cost if they defied that pressure is another question.
I don't think they're right, and I think Biden has given us a test case. If Democrats don't lose the House or Senate in 2022 by a greater percentage than a normal loss for the incumbent's party in mid-terms, and if exit polling shows COVID-19 and economic issues were decisive factors (or even things like apprehension about so-called wokeism), we'll be able to see if there is any actual political cost or a bunch of sound and fury, signifying nothing.
Hi Bob, This comment pertains to all posts about TGWT. I'm reading (I'm disappointed to learn you no longer read books.) George Bernard Shaw, PYGMALION and THREE OTHER PLAYS (2004, 667 pages) and he has a lot to say about our current affairs. He wrote these words over 100 years ago. Which brings me to my point. I read your words of 20 years ago. I'm surprised that given your knowledge of Evo Psych that you still believe that mankind can change is behavior toward world governance. Your position hasn't changed. Mine has - to a strict realist one.
Your post prompted me to go back and look at what I wrote a the beginning of the TGWT. You can read that post here (in which you and NZN are referenced. https://markedwardjabbour.com/2021/09/12/screwed-without-a-kiss/
Back to Shaw. He wrote at the end of WW1, "Hegel was right ... we learn from history that men never learn anything from history." (516) [and] "Truth telling is not compatible with the defense of the realm." (518) [and this gem] "no less than twenty-three wars are at present being waged to confirm the peace ..." (514) [and this] "men who had become rich by placing their personal interests before those of the country, and measuring the success of every activity by the pecuniary profit ..." (500)
The whole of his work is brilliant.
The Pygmalion Effect (social psych) has it's limits. Ozzie Smith cannot become Babe Ruth and vice versa. No matter how much you want it so.
Anyway, I enjoy your posts and discussions. cheers
No less a realist than Hans Morgenthau said world government is entirely conceivable, depending on circumstances. So I wouldn't say a 'strict realist' position precludes belief in the possibility of world governance. And btw, at one point, millennia ago, the idea of deep allegiance to a nation state would have seemed inconceivable. Things change.
Yes, things change. I took a dive into Morgenthau and at first look I'd say I agree with his six principles. That nations behave like people and are driven by self interest, i.e. survival. And power facilitates that.
So, technology and communication (and war) means have changed, such that killing from a distance is far more advanced/easier/deadly than in Shaw's day. Also, there are far more people and nations today. But, "human nature" has not was my point.
With fewer people and fewer nations it should have been easier before to form a "rules based" world governing politic/order. It was attempted, but didn't work well. Why? Morgenthau gets into that and I agree - people lie. That's a big part of our nature.
I saw where later he was described as an "ethical idealist". That doesn't jive with my idea of "strict realism". However, I'm not trained in formal political science or philosophy - psychology and anthropology is my game. And I'd say, that hasn't changed either.
Btw, my last book, ELECTION 2016, has been critically acclaimed as a "thrilling discourse on power." You can read reviews here: https://www.markjabbour.com/
Take care and hang in there. cheers