Ryan in the Mirror

Ryan’s emphasis on the (false) claim that “America is an idea” is the key to understanding his foreign policy.

Though “America is an idea” may not be the kind of statement that can be simply true or false, Daniel Larison’s larger point on Paul Ryan’s foreign policy views remains intact. A naive universalism in political philosophy tends toward imperialism, or to what Mr. Larison likes to call “hegemonism”: In the case of the “American idea,” the universality of the abstraction corresponds to a moral philosophy theoretically applicable to all human beings (maybe even all beings) at all times and places (on Earth or in all the universes), and converts on the plane of real people, places, and things into a world-spanning requirement to meddle, or, as Paul Ryan puts it, “to recoil at the idea of persistent moral indifference toward any nation that stifles and denies liberty.” “It is always,” says Ryan, “in the interest of the United States to promote [its] principles in other nations.”

Larison goes on to fault Ryan for “the same incoherence that afflicts all hegemonists that try to be democratists at the same time.” I think the comment is meant to refer to illiberal and undemocratic methods that the hegemon will call upon to preserve hegemony, a contradiction between contingent means and ideal ends. As presented, the problem isn’t incoherence, however, but an unrealistic or brittle consistency: too much coherence, the perfect simplicity of the abstraction colliding with the complexities of sublunary life.

Such excessive coherence exposes Ryanism or Ryanized neo-conservatism as deeply if distortively liberal and quite impossibly progressive – in confirmation of the Straussian critique of Americanism as a first wave modernism, desirable when compared to most or all of what surfed in on the second and third waves, but of the same flawed genus, and, implicitly, quite dangerous if taken to an extreme. Ryan, his special friends, and those who inspired them portray themselves as the carriers of ideal Americanism against the (p)rogressive “cancer,” but the gleaming surface of their illimitable “missionary” ambition reveals them to be the cancerest of all.

*If you must take the statement as a logical assertion, and cannot be convinced that the world is will and idea, and nothing else besides, then it must be taken as self-definitional: What is American about America as an idea would be the idea that it is an idea. In this sense Germany or Russia or Rwanda are no less ideas, but not ideas born of an ideal: The German, Russian, or Rwandan idea will be concretely geographical and ethnographical. The idea of a country born of and sustained as ideation is a crystallization of the liberal and progressive universal idea, corresponding to the perfectly empty ideal individual of liberalism.

Home Page  Public Email  Twitter  Facebook  YouTube  Github   

Writing since ancient times, blogging, e-commercing, and site installing-designing-maintaining since 2001; WordPress theme and plugin configuring and developing since 2004 or so; a lifelong freelancer, not associated nor to be associated with any company, publication, party, university, church, or other institution. 

3 comments on “Ryan in the Mirror

Commenting at CK MacLeod's

We are determined to encourage thoughtful discussion, so please be respectful to others. We also provide a set of Commenting Options - comment/commenter highlighting and ignoring, and commenter archives that you can access by clicking the commenter options button (). Go to our Commenting Guidelines page for more details, including how to report offensive and spam commenting.

  1. No, Russia as well Germany’s idea, is definitely not idea based, but ethnically one, Rwanda is as with many neighboring regimes, too riven by tribal conflicts, for a united polity, ’94 being the bloodiest but not first exemplar, Would Larison have supported intervention, other than after a fleet of V-2s striking the US, one tends to doubt it.

  2. do we use military force to export our “ideas” or do we, after military conflict, seek to imprint them because we believe them to be in the interests of the conquered and not merely ourselves?

    • Why does it have to be seen as a sequence with discrete phases, one after the other, whichever you put first? Seems to me they at a minimum overlap and interrelate in complex ways – especially when you consider how a military potential supports a political process, or a political system or approach can be shaped by a military potential, or how one type of conflict precludes or calls for another, and so on… Lots of people will have a hard time believing that the determinative and sufficient motivation has really been benefit to others at any point, or anyway for longer than the span of a particular emergency. But, if they’re wrong, and the motivation really is altruistic, there’s still a need to think it all through, maybe even more of one.

1 Pings/Trackbacks for "Ryan in the Mirror"
Commenter Ignore Button by CK's Plug-Ins

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *



Noted & Quoted

TV pundits and op-ed writers of every major newspaper epitomize how the Democratic establishment has already reached a consensus: the 2020 nominee must be a centrist, a Joe Biden, Cory Booker or Kamala Harris–type, preferably. They say that Joe Biden should "run because [his] populist image fits the Democrats’ most successful political strategy of the past generation" (David Leonhardt, New York Times), and though Biden "would be far from an ideal president," he "looks most like the person who could beat Trump" (David Ignatius, Washington Post). Likewise, the same elite pundit class is working overtime to torpedo left-Democratic candidates like Sanders.

For someone who was not acquainted with Piketty's paper, the argument for a centrist Democrat might sound compelling. If the country has tilted to the right, should we elect a candidate closer to the middle than the fringe? If the electorate resembles a left-to-right line, and each voter has a bracketed range of acceptability in which they vote, this would make perfect sense. The only problem is that it doesn't work like that, as Piketty shows.

The reason is that nominating centrist Democrats who don't speak to class issues will result in a great swathe of voters simply not voting. Conversely, right-wing candidates who speak to class issues, but who do so by harnessing a false consciousness — i.e. blaming immigrants and minorities for capitalism's ills, rather than capitalists — will win those same voters who would have voted for a more class-conscious left candidate. Piketty calls this a "bifurcated" voting situation, meaning many voters will connect either with far-right xenophobic nationalists or left-egalitarian internationalists, but perhaps nothing in-between.

Comment →

Understanding Trump’s charisma offers important clues to understanding the problems that the Democrats need to address. Most important, the Democratic candidate must convey a sense that he or she will fulfil the promise of 2008: not piecemeal reform but a genuine, full-scale change in America’s way of thinking. It’s also crucial to recognise that, like Britain, America is at a turning point and must go in one direction or another. Finally, the candidate must speak to Americans’ sense of self-respect linked to social justice and inclusion. While Weber’s analysis of charisma arose from the German situation, it has special relevance to the United States of America, the first mass democracy, whose Constitution invented the institution of the presidency as a recognition of the indispensable role that unique individuals play in history.

Comment →

[E]ven Fox didn’t tout Bartiromo’s big scoops on Trump’s legislative agenda, because 10 months into the Trump presidency, nobody is so foolish as to believe that him saying, “We’re doing a big infrastructure bill,” means that the Trump administration is, in fact, doing a big infrastructure bill. The president just mouths off at turns ignorantly and dishonestly, and nobody pays much attention to it unless he says something unusually inflammatory.On some level, it’s a little bit funny. On another level, Puerto Rico is still languishing in the dark without power (and in many cases without safe drinking water) with no end in sight. Trump is less popular at this point in his administration than any previous president despite a generally benign economic climate, and shows no sign of changing course. Perhaps it will all work out for the best, and someday we’ll look back and chuckle about the time when we had a president who didn’t know anything about anything that was happening and could never be counted on to make coherent, factual statements on any subject. But traditionally, we haven’t elected presidents like that — for what have always seemed like pretty good reasons — and the risks of compounding disaster are still very much out there.

Comment →
CK's WP Plugins


Extraordinary Comments

CK's WP Plugins