Open progressive realism thread

Still catching up from jet lag, but that doesn't mean you can't comment on Robert Wright's proposal of a new foreign policy paradigm -- progressive realism -- in the New York Times. Quick excerpt: Every paradigm needs a name, and the best name for this one is progressive realism. The label has a nice ring (Who is against progress?) and it aptly suggests bipartisan appeal. This is a realism that could attract many liberals and a progressivism that could attract some conservatives.... Progressive realism begins with a cardinal doctrine of traditional realism: the purpose of American foreign policy is to serve American interests. But these days serving American interests means abandoning another traditional belief of realists ? that so long as foreign governments don?t endanger American interests on the geopolitical chess board, their domestic affairs don?t concern us. In an age when Americans are threatened by overseas bioweapons labs and outbreaks of flu, by Chinese pollution that enters lungs in Oregon, by imploding African states that could turn into terrorist havens, by authoritarian Arab governments that push young men toward radicalism, the classic realist indifference to the interiors of nations is untenable. In that sense progressive realists look a lot like neoconservatives and traditional liberals: concerned about the well-being of foreigners, albeit out of strict national interest. But progressive realism has two core themes that make it clearly distinctive, and they?re reflected in two different meanings of the word ?progressive.? First, the word signifies a belief in, well, progress. Free markets are spreading across the world on the strength of their productivity, and economic liberty tends to foster political liberty. Yes, the Chinese government could probably reverse the growth in popular expression of the past two decades, but only by severely restricting information technologies that are prerequisites for prosperity. Meanwhile, notwithstanding dogged efforts at repression, political pluralism in China is growing.... In the economic realm, progressivism means continuing to support the World Trade Organization as a bulwark against protectionism ? but also giving it the authority to address labor issues, as union leaders have long advocated. Environmental issues, too, should be addressed at the W.T.O. and through other bodies of regional and global governance.... President Bush?s belated diplomatic involvement in Darfur suggests growing enlightenment, but sluggish ad hoc multilateralism isn?t enough. We need multilateral structures capable of decisively forceful intervention and nation building ? ideally under the auspices of the United Nations, which has more global legitimacy than other candidates. America should lead in building these structures and thereafter contribute its share, but only its share. To some extent, the nurturing of international institutions and solid international law is simple thrift.... This principle lies at the heart of progressive realism. A correlation of fortunes ? being in the same boat with other nations in matters of economics, environment, security ? is what makes international governance serve national interest. It is also what makes enlightened self-interest de facto humanitarian. Progressive realists see that America can best flourish if others flourish ? if African states cohere, if the world?s Muslims feel they benefit from the world order, if personal and environmental health are nurtured, if economic inequities abroad are muted so that young democracies can be stable and strong. More and more, doing well means doing good. Read the whole thing. Mickey Kaus offers his critique here. My insta-critique is three-fold: 1) I look forward to the cage match between Wright, Francis Fukuyama, and the other non-Bushies to come up with the best adjective-noun moniker that combines realism and liberalism. Is progressive realism better than "realistic Wilsonianism?" By the title alone, I have to give the edge to Wright. 2) The problem with coming up with new paradigms to replace the Bush administration's current one is that you have to be careful what you're balancing against. Are new foreign policy thinkers reacting against Bush's neoconservative ideas, or the incompetency with which those ideas were implemented? This is the biggest strike against neoconservatism -- that when executued badly, the outcomes border on the catastrophic. This suggests a new rule with which all new foreign policy doctrines should be considered -- how do they look when implemented by overworked, brain-fried, corrupt, partisan politicos? Wright's dependence on global governance structures give me some pause here. 3) A key equation for Wright is that free trade + Internet = long-term liberalization in authoritarian societies. I'm still not convinced of this, and China is not the best example.