https://blue.feedland.org/?river=http://data.feedland.org/blue/feeds/fnix.xml It's just a feed for now Sat, 17 Feb 2024 08:33:41 GMT feedland v0.6.43 https://cyber.harvard.edu/rss/rss.html Sat, 17 Feb 2024 08:33:42 GMT http://rpc.rsscloud.io:5337/pleaseNotify Sat, February 17, 2024 3:33 AM EST <p>Thank you for the responses and yes, perhaps it’s my bad. I do applaud your work on supporting Ukraine, but then I see stories like this, </p> <p>where the humanitarian &amp; moral catastrophe is just as horrible, if not worse quantitavely, and yet even in your rather active Twitter presence you somehow never happen accross this very relevant topic. </p> <p>This then makes neo-idealism essentially a single-issue cause, focused on Ukraine. And there’s nothing wrong with that! But it should then honestly just present itself as such, instead of making unfounded allusions to some kind of grand ethical aspirations that promise a morally edified Western foreign policy _tout court_. It reminds one more of Biden’s lukewarm, kinda-sorta campaign promises of moral clarity in foreign policy (remeber making Saudi a pariah?) that predictably got abandoned as soon as they proved inconvenient.</p> <p>I also realize that, in the context of Ukraine, where many of its supporters are not principled anti-imperialists but more blind-faith, pro-Western “we’re-the-good-guys”-types (as a mirror image of the stooges on the left – who do exist, yes – for whom “we’re always the bad guys”), casting asperions on policies that are morally unjustifiable yet convenient for the West in other theaters risks alienating that segment. But then you have traded your ideals for practical advantage. Which could be argued is acceptable if you’re primarily concerned with supporting Ukraine at all costs, but it’s clearly invalid when you claim to stand for a larger policy project, not least of all one that no less than names itself “idealism”.</p> <p>Besides its inherent moral worth, I actually think a truly idealistic foreign policy could ironically help Ukraine more than preaching to the choir of those who already support the West giving them its all or hoping to convert the pro-Putinite far-right with talk of Western self-interest. For historical reasons, much of the non-Western world turns a blind eye to the moral aspect here (just as we do with Israel-Palestine) and in my view, actually living up to our ideals is the only way to really convince them. The West _isn’t_ inherently always in the right, as was the case with e.g. South Afraica during the apartheid. The USSR’s support for anti-apartheid may have been entirely cynical, but it’s our own failing to live up to our own proclaimed ideals that made us an easy target in the first place. This is the space a neo-idealist project should be focused on first and foremost, to try to open people’s minds and raise their scruples, regardless of their tribal inclinations. It shouldn’t just be concerned with reinvigorated Western foreign policy, but foreign policy in our globalized world as such, truly taking the equal dignity &amp; worth of every human being, regardless of race or nationality, as its basis. Only rooting for Ukraine, in this context, is – in a word – small, and promises only Bidenesque backtracking &amp; confusion when put to the test. And that’s at best; at worst, we get neocon hubris where the original intent – supporting democracy in the world – gets subsumed into purely self-satisfied illusions around the grandeur of wielding benevolent power &amp; civilizng the savages. I do wish you the best, which is why I highlight the parts I think are not up to par.</p> Sat, 17 Feb 2024 08:33:41 GMT https://blue.feedland.org/?item=295222 https://blue.feedland.org/?item=295222 Thank you for the responses and yes, perhaps it’s my bad. I do applaud your work on supporting Ukraine, but then I see stories like this, where the humanitarian & moral catastrophe is just as horrible, if not worse quantitavely, and yet even in your rather active Twitter presence you somehow never happen accross this very relevant topic. This then makes neo-idealism essentially a single-issue cause, focused on Ukraine. And there’s nothing wrong with that! But it should then honestly just present itself as such, instead of making unfounded allusions to some kind of grand ethical aspirations that promise a morally edified Western foreign policy \_tout court\_. It reminds one more of Biden’s lukewarm, kinda-sorta campaign promises of moral clarity in foreign policy (remeber making Saudi a pariah?) that predictably got abandoned as soon as they proved inconvenient. I also realize that, in the context of Ukraine, where many of its supporters are not principled anti-imperialists but more blind-faith, pro-Western “we’re-the-good-guys”-types (as a mirror image of the stooges on the left – who do exist, yes – for whom “we’re always the bad guys”), casting asperions on policies that are morally unjustifiable yet convenient for the West in other theaters risks alienating that segment. But then you have traded your ideals for practical advantage. Which could be argued is acceptable if you’re primarily concerned with supporting Ukraine at all costs, but it’s clearly invalid when you claim to stand for a larger policy project, not least of all one that no less than names itself “idealism”. Besides its inherent moral worth, I actually think a truly idealistic foreign policy could ironically help Ukraine more than preaching to the choir of those who already support the West giving them its all or hoping to convert the pro-Putinite far-right with talk of Western self-interest. For historical reasons, much of the non-Western world turns a blind eye to the moral aspect here (just as we do with Israel-Palestine) and in my view, actually living up to our ideals is the only way to really convince them. The West \_isn’t\_ inherently always in the right, as was the case with e.g. South Afraica during the apartheid. The USSR’s support for anti-apartheid may have been entirely cynical, but it’s our own failing to live up to our own proclaimed ideals that made us an easy target in the first place. This is the space a neo-idealist project should be focused on first and foremost, to try to open people’s minds and raise their scruples, regardless of their tribal inclinations. It shouldn’t just be concerned with reinvigorated Western foreign policy, but foreign policy in our globalized world as such, truly taking the equal dignity & worth of every human being, regardless of race or nationality, as its basis. Only rooting for Ukraine, in this context, is – in a word – small, and promises only Bidenesque backtracking & confusion when put to the test. And that’s at best; at worst, we get neocon hubris where the original intent – supporting democracy in the world – gets subsumed into purely self-satisfied illusions around the grandeur of wielding benevolent power & civilizng the savages. I do wish you the best, which is why I highlight the parts I think are not up to par. <p>Thank you for the responses and yes, perhaps it’s my bad. I do applaud your work on supporting Ukraine, but then I see stories like this, </p> <p>where the humanitarian &amp; moral catastrophe is just as horrible, if not worse quantitavely, and yet even in your rather active Twitter presence you somehow never happen accross this very relevant topic. </p> <p>This then makes neo-idealism essentially a single-issue cause, focused on Ukraine. And there’s nothing wrong with that! But it should then honestly just present itself as such, instead of making unfounded allusions to some kind of grand ethical aspirations that promise a morally edified Western foreign policy _tout court_. It reminds one more of Biden’s lukewarm, kinda-sorta campaign promises of moral clarity in foreign policy (remeber making Saudi a pariah?) that predictably got abandoned as soon as they proved inconvenient.</p> <p>I also realize that, in the context of Ukraine, where many of its supporters are not principled anti-imperialists but more blind-faith, pro-Western “we’re-the-good-guys”-types (as a mirror image of the stooges on the left – who do exist, yes – for whom “we’re always the bad guys”), casting asperions on policies that are morally unjustifiable yet convenient for the West in other theaters risks alienating that segment. But then you have traded your ideals for practical advantage. Which could be argued is acceptable if you’re primarily concerned with supporting Ukraine at all costs, but it’s clearly invalid when you claim to stand for a larger policy project, not least of all one that no less than names itself “idealism”.</p> <p>Besides its inherent moral worth, I actually think a truly idealistic foreign policy could ironically help Ukraine more than preaching to the choir of those who already support the West giving them its all or hoping to convert the pro-Putinite far-right with talk of Western self-interest. For historical reasons, much of the non-Western world turns a blind eye to the moral aspect here (just as we do with Israel-Palestine) and in my view, actually living up to our ideals is the only way to really convince them. The West _isn’t_ inherently always in the right, as was the case with e.g. South Afraica during the apartheid. The USSR’s support for anti-apartheid may have been entirely cynical, but it’s our own failing to live up to our own proclaimed ideals that made us an easy target in the first place. This is the space a neo-idealist project should be focused on first and foremost, to try to open people’s minds and raise their scruples, regardless of their tribal inclinations. It shouldn’t just be concerned with reinvigorated Western foreign policy, but foreign policy in our globalized world as such, truly taking the equal dignity &amp; worth of every human being, regardless of race or nationality, as its basis. Only rooting for Ukraine, in this context, is – in a word – small, and promises only Bidenesque backtracking &amp; confusion when put to the test. And that’s at best; at worst, we get neocon hubris where the original intent – supporting democracy in the world – gets subsumed into purely self-satisfied illusions around the grandeur of wielding benevolent power &amp; civilizng the savages. I do wish you the best, which is why I highlight the parts I think are not up to par.</p> Sat, 17 Feb 2024 08:33:41 GMT https://blue.feedland.org/?item=295223 https://blue.feedland.org/?item=295223 Thank you for the responses and yes, perhaps it’s my bad. I do applaud your work on supporting Ukraine, but then I see stories like this, where the humanitarian & moral catastrophe is just as horrible, if not worse quantitavely, and yet even in your rather active Twitter presence you somehow never happen accross this very relevant topic. This then makes neo-idealism essentially a single-issue cause, focused on Ukraine. And there’s nothing wrong with that! But it should then honestly just present itself as such, instead of making unfounded allusions to some kind of grand ethical aspirations that promise a morally edified Western foreign policy \_tout court\_. It reminds one more of Biden’s lukewarm, kinda-sorta campaign promises of moral clarity in foreign policy (remeber making Saudi a pariah?) that predictably got abandoned as soon as they proved inconvenient. I also realize that, in the context of Ukraine, where many of its supporters are not principled anti-imperialists but more blind-faith, pro-Western “we’re-the-good-guys”-types (as a mirror image of the stooges on the left – who do exist, yes – for whom “we’re always the bad guys”), casting asperions on policies that are morally unjustifiable yet convenient for the West in other theaters risks alienating that segment. But then you have traded your ideals for practical advantage. Which could be argued is acceptable if you’re primarily concerned with supporting Ukraine at all costs, but it’s clearly invalid when you claim to stand for a larger policy project, not least of all one that no less than names itself “idealism”. Besides its inherent moral worth, I actually think a truly idealistic foreign policy could ironically help Ukraine more than preaching to the choir of those who already support the West giving them its all or hoping to convert the pro-Putinite far-right with talk of Western self-interest. For historical reasons, much of the non-Western world turns a blind eye to the moral aspect here (just as we do with Israel-Palestine) and in my view, actually living up to our ideals is the only way to really convince them. The West \_isn’t\_ inherently always in the right, as was the case with e.g. South Afraica during the apartheid. The USSR’s support for anti-apartheid may have been entirely cynical, but it’s our own failing to live up to our own proclaimed ideals that made us an easy target in the first place. This is the space a neo-idealist project should be focused on first and foremost, to try to open people’s minds and raise their scruples, regardless of their tribal inclinations. It shouldn’t just be concerned with reinvigorated Western foreign policy, but foreign policy in our globalized world as such, truly taking the equal dignity & worth of every human being, regardless of race or nationality, as its basis. Only rooting for Ukraine, in this context, is – in a word – small, and promises only Bidenesque backtracking & confusion when put to the test. And that’s at best; at worst, we get neocon hubris where the original intent – supporting democracy in the world – gets subsumed into purely self-satisfied illusions around the grandeur of wielding benevolent power & civilizng the savages. I do wish you the best, which is why I highlight the parts I think are not up to par.