« Using Movable Type | Main | Using BlogEd »
May 06, 2004
Of Paradise and Power
Dad sent me a copy of Robert Kagan's book, "Of Paradise and Power," in which Kagan explains how America and Europe differ in their approaches to foreign policy, and why this causes them to disagree publicly. I've read only 46 pages (of 158) so far. This book currently has Amazon sales rank 7517, so maybe Kagan's getting his money back.
In a ZMag article, Joseph Gerson calls Kagan, "The chief proponent for disregarding Europe and putting the 'old' continent in its place." I have not Googled around to see what his friends say about him, but he seems to sit near the middle of the American road.
Two things strike me so far. Only one of them concerns the book alone. First, Kagan says that because European policy makers know their militaries cannot engage in warfare without support from the US military, they promote multilateral action and seek to stop unilateral (US) action, reasoning from a position of weakness, but he also hints that European policy makers generally agree with US policies otherwise. If reasoning from a position of weakness, would you not fear most the biggest, toughest guy around, namely the US? Can one explain promotion of multilateralism more easily by including fear of the US as a primary ingredient, rather than fear of "failed" or "rogue" states. In recent European history, the toughest guy on around has tended to turn bully. In that light, European policy makers appease Saddam perhaps, but George W. definitely. Kagan overlooks this, perhaps because, "The United States is a liberal, progressive society through and through, and to the extent that Americans believe in power, they believe it must be a means of advancing the principles of a liberal civilization and a liberal world order." (p. 41) How could one possibly fear the US, therefore?
Second, Kagan follows the convention of identifying Europe and America, originally meaning those in charge of policy decisions, with all citizens of each nation involved. The French might call this an amalgam, a brutal shunting together of two or more concepts that do not mix naturally. After amalgamating his concepts, a thinker tends to overgeneralize attributes of the amalgam. e-Prime warns against the "is of identity" that allows us to make mental amalgams. Kagan has awareness of the problem at least in part, as he carefully disclaims early in his book that one should expect variation in opinion. Then he goes on to equate European and US policy makers with everyone living under their rule.
Kegan has good company in following this convention. It shows up everywhere from the New York Times to France Inter to casual conversation. Why do we all agree to amalgame things this way? Do our republics work so well that representatives can stand for us this completely? Their ideas are (sic) our ideas. When the King is (sic) the State, the State becomes easier to identify without statistical methods.
Posted by Mark at May 6, 2004 11:23 PM