> I'd view the paper by M&W as a salvo fired by a
> wing in the academic establishment, one of the
> major sources of pro-status quo ideology in the
> country. The message is that U.S. capitalists,
> that until now have taken a relaxed, laissez-faire
> approach to those special interests (after all, in
> "normal" times, how some people conduct
> business abroad may have very little to do with
> my bottom line), may be -- or should be! --
> increasingly worried about the consequences of
> leaving foreign policy in the hands of these
> special interests.
I was referring to Mearsheimer and Walt's paper -- and the discussion also involved Joseph Massad's article in Al-Ahram.
The article linked below outlines a "Democratic foreign policy" that -- as I suggested in my postings -- would be better for the interest of U.S. capitalists in today's world -- although it would require defeating or seriously curtailing the power of the ruling imperialistic clique. (And I understand, again, that the differences between "neoliberals" and "neoconservatives" do not amount to a class struggle.)
If I remember correctly, there were two kinds of criticisms against my mode of arguing. One, inconsistent, voiced by Carrol Cox, alleged that the best foreign policy for the U.S. capitalist class was beyond the scope of human cognition *and* that the current foreign policy of the U.S. was by definition best for the interest of the capitalist class. (How would anyone dare question the conventional wisdom of the bourgeoisie? Who else but them could know what's best for them?)
Somebody else (I can't remember her/his name) argued that we shouldn't give advice to the U.S. capitalists on foreign policy -- better to let them shoot themselves in the foot. The worse-is-better kind of argument. The problem with that is that the current foreign policy is bad for U.S. capitalists as a class and even worse -- much worse for regular working people, here and abroad.
Julio
* * *
NYT Magazine The Rehabilitation of the Cold-War Liberal By PETER BEINART Published: April 30, 2006
This fall, for the third time since 9/11, American voters will choose between Democrats and Republicans while knowing what only one party believes about national security. In 2002, Democratic candidates tried to change the subject, focusing on Social Security and health care instead. In 2004, John Kerry substituted biography for ideology, largely ignoring his own extensive foreign-policy record and stressing his service in Vietnam. In this year's Senate and House races, the party looks set to reprise Michael Dukakis's old theme: competence. Rather than tell Americans what their vision is, Democrats will assure them that they can execute it better than George W. Bush.