Comments on: good intentions

By: Jaybird

Jaybird — Thu, 25 Jun 2009 16:45:48 +0000

“The road to hell, etc.”

There are many, many problems with putting overmuch weight on intentions.

First and foremost, of course, is the whole “people lie” thing. “I didn’t mean for X to happen. I wanted for Y to happen!” is something that pretty much everybody says when X happens.

The problem, of course, is when people say “if you try that, Y isn’t going to happen, but X is going to happen”, other people will say something to the effect of “at least we’re trying something!!!” or “I would rather live in a world where people hope for Y despite the possibilty of X than in a world with negative netties like you.”

And then, when X happens, people will, once again, point out that they didn’t want X to happen, they wanted Y to happen.

The basic assumption that people who are hesitant to try a policy because they think that X will be the true outcome will generally be attacked as people who are opposed to Y… and, only if they are lucky, will they be engaged in a conversation about what the policy is likely to result in.

By: matoko_chan

matoko_chan — Thu, 25 Jun 2009 14:02:27 +0000

I doubt it.

By: Bob Cheeks

Bob Cheeks — Thu, 25 Jun 2009 12:44:54 +0000

I dunno, maybe Sara P. can beat Steve Erkle? We might “all” be tired of socialism in a few years?

By: matoko_chan

matoko_chan — Thu, 25 Jun 2009 11:58:10 +0000

/sigh
Well I’m super-tired of it.
Like I said, bad conservative memes seem to be the orphan puppies of Reihanistan. All his stuff is like this at the Beast…..Cheney for president, Beck is really a good guy instead of the second coming of Jack Lucas without the self-examination, Obama is a closet neocon, crazypants stuff.
This stuff is political satire, not political commentary.
And it is badcraziness for the low information base, like the Sarah Palin crack Ross and Reihan were dealin’ last summer…..my studied hypothesis is that Ross and Reihan killed the GOP by not denouncing Palin for the big-hair-and-mall-bangs ex-beauty queen that she is in the beginning.
If all the conservative intelligentsia could have presented a united front you could have got rid of her…….now you are doomed.

By: Reihan responds | The League of Ordinary Gentlemen

Reihan responds | The League of Ordinary Gentlemen — Thu, 25 Jun 2009 02:14:57 +0000

[...] you read my post from earlier today, please read this one by Reihan over at the Scene, where he (with characteristic good humor) [...]

By: Katherine

Katherine — Thu, 25 Jun 2009 01:54:02 +0000

Very well said, Freddie! The disturbing thing about US foreign policy is the tendency to make virtually any issue – not just ones of foreign relations that might actually effect the US, but domestic policies that are irrelevant to America’s well-being – the dividing line for whether a nation is a friend or enemy. And the fact that “friend” and “enemy” are the only two categories out there. Venezuela is a classic example – what has their government done, but direct some harshly-worded criticism at the US and adopt economic policies America doesn’t agree with? Neither of those things harms or endangers the US, but they’re considered an enemy.

And yes, it would be far more comfortable if there seemed to be a middle ground between “countries we like” and “countries we might invade”.

By: Joseph FM

Joseph FM — Thu, 25 Jun 2009 01:33:51 +0000

Well, both, I would say. Longstanding relationships are obviously important, but in some cases they can’t be overriding. The Bush approach to Europe was more one of “we’ve made up our minds that we’re going to do something foolish, and if you disagree then screw you.” I’m not advocating that. I’m sort of arguing the reverse: that France and Germany were right not to let their relationship to the US drag them into a war that they had no reason to support. And (even in spite of my heritage, though perhaps also because of it) I think the US, even after all that has happened, should take that same approach towards Israel, if, say, Netanyahu decides that the situation in Iran just confirms his worst fears and attacks. (I have no idea how likely that scenario is, but you get my point.)

By: Joseph FM

Joseph FM — Thu, 25 Jun 2009 01:20:56 +0000

Good point. But that, I think, just proves that “rational” is too vague a term to really be meaningful.

By: Consumatopia

Consumatopia — Thu, 25 Jun 2009 00:23:03 +0000

A nation-state cannot have “friends”, only allies, rivals, and enemies, and such relationships are necessarily conditional.

Sure, but conditional on long-standing relationships, or on whatever the issue of the day happens to be? Of course we have to deal with bastards, but this got taken too far when we started dividing Europe into “Old” and “New” in late 2002.

By: Reihan Salam And A Million Posts By Daniel Larison « Around The Sphere

Reihan Salam And A Million Posts By Daniel Larison « Around The Sphere — Thu, 25 Jun 2009 00:11:34 +0000

[...] finally, Freddie at The League: Anyway, I think that Reihan’s views on foreign policy demonstrate the limitations [...]