Giving `Realism' A Bad Name

The Demise Of Idealism In Barack Obama's Washington

(CBS)  James W. Ceaser is a visiting fellow at the Hoover Institution and professor of politics at the University of Virginia.

---

Democrats are clinging stubbornly to their new religion of "realism" and "pragmatism" in foreign affairs. Even where prudence dictates otherwise, as it surely does in responding to the fraudulent Iranian election and its aftermath, President Obama has been tepid at best in condemning the conduct of the mullocracy. So as reformers in Tehran are being hosed and rounded up, our "realists" stand mute, fearful that any critical comment might upset the one the president dignifies as the "Supreme Leader" or interfere with our Great Reset policy of "engaging" adversaries. The administration will not even await the outcome of events before signaling its eagerness to deal with the current government. Realists will pay any price and bear any burden to avoid anything that resembles the democracy agenda of George W. Bush.

Democrats were not always so tough-minded. For decades, they supported the causes of democracy and humanitarianism, regularly excoriating Republican presidents for coddling antidemocratic leaders. President Reagan was taken to task for his cozy relations with dictators like Philippine president Ferdinand Marcos (whom he eventually succeeded in moving aside), and the first President Bush was accused of fighting the first Gulf war to do the bidding of the Saudi king. Even George W. Bush, when it was politically convenient, was whipped with the lash of the Democrats' idealism. Almost all the Democratic contenders for the nomination in 2008 criticized his close relations to Pakistan's Pervez Musharraf, with considerations of realism providing him no relief. Barack Obama was no exception:

"I said very early on, when emergency rule was initiated by Musharraf, that we should suspend military aid  until you had full restoration of democracy, including releasing political prisoners, and insuring that there's freedom of expression and freedom of the press during the election period."

But the Iraq war--and partisan politics--gradually changed the Democrats' calculation. As conditions deteriorated in Iraq, and as many finally accepted that President Bush was in earnest about his commitment to the spread of democracy, liberals flipped. They abandoned their previous commitment to principle, condemned Bush for idealism and ideological blindness, and embraced with fervor the position they labeled realism. Realism, if the word is taken at face value, seems to mean nothing more--or less--than seeing the world as it is, without blinders or excessive hopes or fears. But in the context of the debate in recent years, it came to refer to something much more specific: It meant a cessation of all principled talk about democracy and universal rights, including their philosophical foundations, and a willingness to engage with any and all forces that could claim to have created order. Democracy, realists say, is for the long run; in the short run our job is to deal with the forces of order.

Under the sway of this view, liberals were suddenly falling all over themselves to prove their manliness by dismissing Bush's naïveté. Among commentators and intellectuals, the passionate embrace of realism went further still. The real realists--no touch of sentiment or nostalgia here--took to ridiculing democracy itself. Hadn't democracy been promoted, to no good effect, in Palestine and Lebanon? (In the latter case, President Obama seemed last week to change his tune.) A Harvard professor even wondered out loud to me how much democracy was worth, even in principle, if it had elected George W. Bush. This was the cup of academic wisdom from which many of our politicians began to drink.

In fact, the Bush policy was never quite as given to idealism as was commonly depicted. In many of the places where the administration pursued democracy, the nondemocratic forces were not our allies, and they offered little prospect of establishing viable order. The options for establishing stable regimes in our world today are few, and often the hoped-for strongmen are not that strong. There was never, for example, an available despot on hand in Iraq who could have miraculously picked up the pieces and restored order. None of this, however, prevented realists from condemning the surge and proposing the mirage of partitioning Iraq among three nondemocratic states.

Yet granting the Bush critics part of their point, it can be admitted that pursuing democracy became too inflexible a doctrine. Foreign policy is a practical realm in which the primary aim is to promote the nation's security and interest. There is no room for an ethics of intention, only for an ethics of results or responsibility. No nation should follow a formula for its own sake. But this obvious counsel of prudence leaves open the question of what it is that promotes our security and interests. The masters of so-called realism have all too often missed opportunities for fundamental change. Their "tough" acceptance of order turns into a worship of order, and they discount the prospects of change even before it has the chance to test its strength. Just where, one wonders, would the current realists have stood at the time of the Cedar Revolution in Lebanon or the Orange Revolution in the Ukraine? The question answers itself. They would surely not have been "meddling" in the Syrian or Russian zone of influence, but checking with Assad and bowing to Putin.

One thing is certain. President Obama in five brief months has taken not only his administration, but his entire party, a long way down the road to this new posture of celebrating order. The current silence of Democrats on the Hill, once passionate defenders of democracy, speaks volumes. Meanwhile, the president has not only cultivated the art of publicly apologizing before the world for George W. Bush's sins, he is preemptively removing America from taking any strong public stands out of fear that they will backfire in the current environment. Only, it seems, when the world realizes that this is Obama's America, and not the America of the past, can our moral authority carry any weight. Evidently, we have not yet reached that point.

Realism as practiced has become an inflexible response to an imaginary idealism. Its costs will soon become obvious, if they are not so already. These include not just an inability to fashion a moral or principled domestic consensus for foreign policy, but also harm to reformist forces around the world that are struggling to establish constitutional government in the face of authoritarian rulers. It might be quaint in our pragmatic age to speak of the intrinsic value of honor, but honor does have its practical benefits. It instills the confidence in others that, at least to the measure of your ability, you will have their back. Does anyone believe that democrats in Tehran, Havana, or Caracas are celebrating today the triumph of the cool realists in Washington?

It is a dictum of our new foreign policy that "moral hubris" is out and "humility" is in. This is fine so long as humility does not turn into its own form of hubris, giving the green light everywhere to the forces of oppression. Democrats now run the risk of turning their vaunted new doctrine of realism into a rigid ideology. It would be much better to follow the sober advice of that unerring scholar of international relations, Polonius: Neither an idealist nor a realist be.

[pdchapin]

As if the Iranian government cares about what we say. It's the same silly argument we use to have between "engaging" or "challenging" China. They're not going to change their internal politics just to match our wishes, no matter how we present them.

[didserve]

More Neocon Babble!

I cannot believe Americans have not risen up and driven these type of people from her shores!

[speakinup22]

Because even though Obama won the election, freedom of speech still exists.

Don't like it ? Go to Iran.

[imnho]

Intervention in Iran would mean another major land war. With the present size of the armed forces this is not an option, unless your talking about a draft.

The next problem that must be taken into account is that there is no way to intervene without totally uniting the Iran people in a war aginist us. It would be a conflict that would be much more intense and costly then Iraq.

Of course the neocons have no intention of marching off to war, so this does not seem to occur to them.

[speakinup22]

I don't believe anyone want to start a land war with Iran. All we are saying is that the President should give hope to the younger Iranians that we believe they should be heard, and NOT killed for their peaceful demonstration. You know, like Tiananmen square.

[shaycrystal]

After all these years of brutalizing the people of Iraq and Afghanistan, are they now considered democracies- countries where people can be killed by suicide bombers?. How many people have to be killed in the name of this so called democracy? And in the name of true democracy , why are Bush and Cheny still free men. that human beings could could torture other beings like themselves is astounding. Please remember , that regardless of colour of skin, god made everyone in his own image and likeness. How mny countries have to be invaded? how many lives have to be ruined and blood spilled in the name of this so called democracy. Give it a rest and remove the log in your eyes before the speck in your brothers.

[ubrew12]

Do you guys at the Hoover institute ever get tired of telling other countries how to behave? Bush sought and GOT half a billion dollars earmarked for unsettling the Iranian regime from within. While I hope the current troubles aren't our doing, it certainly opens us to the charge that we're involved. History shows that is catastrophic for the country involved and not even a good option for America (I'm thinking of our toppling of the Iranian democracy in '53 and installing a dictator in its place, which led eventually to this 'mullocracy').

The reason U.S. subversion of other countries rarely works to either countries advantage is because, at the end of the day, we really DON'T care about the people in other countries, no matter what volume of crocodile tears you're currently crying. Their fate is their own. As well, the projects to subvert other countries doesn't impact American lives (and is usually black-ops anyway), so we don't even care about the money. And when no one cares about the outcome of a project, it tends to live down to that expectation.

The best policy is the one Obama is taking. Its honest about our true interest in nations halfway across the globe.

[bajajohn1]

Something the writer conveniently forgets is the Republican stance against President Clinton's intervention in Kosovo. Oh, how they railed and railed behind their famours battle cry..."we are not the policemen of the world." The writer is yet another conservative hypocrite.

[USASTILLONTOP]

Why don't we go hide in our little corner of the world like Obama wants us to. I'm sure you all enjoy your freedom but are too self serving to help those who are less fortunate. What a shame.

[bobbyduck1]

Oh sure. Let's poke our nose in again like we did in Iraq. That sure did a lot of good didn't it? Patriots like you have been duped by the Republican war-profiteering machine. Wake up and support America instead of the Gross Old Pigs!

[speakinup22]

So, bobbyduck1 - did Obama mess up by changing his mind, or are you wrong ?

[USASTILLONTOP]

Maybe we should have stayed out of it when Hitler was trying to take over the world or when Russia was a super power. You people make me sick. A bunch of bleeding heart liberals that are afraid of their own shadow. It's pitiful.

[bajajohn1]

We did stay out of the fray when Hitler was trying to take over the world. Only after Japan attacked Pearl Harbor did we go to war. Japan and Germany were two members of the Axis powers. They were allies.

[ubrew12]

Hitler had the most powerful military machine in the world. No one else even came close (though France tried). In contrast, when WWII started the American military was smaller than the military of Romania.

To say these conditions exist today with regard to us and Iran is paranoia of the first order. We are so overwhelmingly powerful, the U.S. POTUS can't sneeze without everybody else catching a cold. And, in that context, taking a hands off, wait and see, approach is appropriate. You're the one afraid of his shadow.

[stopkidding]

Thank God we can depend upon you, Stillontop, to parachute into a chat room with your mouth on full automatic.

[speakinup22]

stopkidding - I see you are taking the usual liberal tack by poking fun at those you have no way of making a good argument against.

But, I guess that beats bajajohn's remark that doesn't make a point at all. I'm sure Germany would have accepted us rolling over and saying uncle right after 12/7.

The point being made john is that freedom is not without its risks. It needs protection.

But this would all be moot now, as President Obama has decided to accept the advice of Senator McCain.

Kudos, Mr President.

[dartplayer501]

Antonio - I agree completely - we must stay out of it. According to a number of the "in the know's" on the Sunday blather sessions, Musavi isn't a whole bunch better then Ahmadinejad, they're both extremists; they're both in favot of Iran's nukes; Musavi has been a little less outspoken over Israel - but that just shows he's older and a little wiser. So imagine what happens; Obama interferes and somehow Musavi comes to power. A few weeks later, Musavi makes a speech outlining just what he'd like to do with Israel - now, Obama's in bed with an Israel-hating Muslim extremist. How the right wing in this country would love that to happen. Or, he gets inviolved and Ahmadinejad stays in power. America looks weak, Ahmadinejad has extra reason to hate the US, we lose more influence in the Middle East, endangering Israel. Getting involved is a no-win situation. I reiterate Antonio's message; "GOOD JOB Mr. President stay out of it."

[speakinup22]

Let me see if I understand this left wingnut's logic.

Obama should refrain from giving hope to the young of Iran which is disenchanted with the hard line 'supreme leader' because he's afraid the Republicans might take advantage of what might happen.

Do you allow paranoia to run your life ALL the time. Or, do you ever consider doing what is correct for its own sake.

When you are President, you represent the People of the United States, NOT just the party you come from.

Sheese, talk about paralsis analysis by the far left people that post on CBS. Let's hope our President has a few more brains than his koolaid drinkers.

[antoniof123]

Democrats are clinging stubbornly to their new religion of "realism" and "pragmatism" in foreign affairs. Even where prudence dictates otherwise, as it surely does in responding to the fraudulent Iranian election and its aftermath, President Obama has been tepid at best in condemning the conduct of the mullocracy.

No we need to keep our noise out of it PERIOD, we are not the police of the world it is killing us.

GOOD JOB Mr. President stay out of it.