A nation is a soul, a spiritual principle. Two things that actually are one come together to build this soul or spiritual principle. One of them lies in the past, the other in the present. One is the common possession of a rich heritage...; the other is a present accord, the desire to live together, and the will to continue to accumulate and build the common heritage. (from Renan’s lecture at the Sorbonne 1882)
Introduction:
Any discussion of the United States’ national interest reflects, in varying degrees, a lack of operational consensus on foreign policy goals, application and institutionalization. Yet, it is the national interest that must be the seed and soil of our foreign policy harvest, “the fundamental objective and ultimate determinant that guides the decision makers of a state in making foreign policy.” (Plano and Olton, International Relations Dictionary, 1982 p. 9) Although specific policy development and diplomatic actions are carried on in pursuit of national interests, the interests themselves are subjectively defined general concepts manifesting the state’s perceived most vital needs which are “deemed to represent the whole society.” (Frankel, National Interest, 1970 p. 39) On a more profound level, the national interest is also the complex tissue through which we view and handle our most vital goals and aspirations in the foreign arena. As Walter Lippmann explained, “the facts we see depend on where they are placed and the habits of our eyes;” reality to us, he suggested, “is a combination of what is there and of what we expected to find.” (Lippmann, Public Opinion, 1965, p. 65) Rarely, though, does the discussion of national interests submerge into general theories, differing views of reality, or baseline metaphysical assumptions. It is on the metaphysical level, the very foundation of national interest formulation, that a polemical conflict is clearly visible. This manifested conflict in American society has deep historical roots.
As early as the writings of Zenos of Elea (490-430 BC)
political thought has observed a dyadic conflict: a sort of “Hegalian dialectic” or “dialogue” which has proceeded through history to the present day. As used by Hegel, “dialectic” relates to an argument which leads toward the truth by the interplay and synthesis of ideas. This argument centers around what is real, what is good, and is the good knowable. Theorists continually redefine these ideas to fit the political and intellectual milieu of the time. One example of synthesis is the American ideology. At one end of the spectrum is the Noumenalist (derived from Kant’s ‘noumenon,’ or ultimate reality) school of thought. At the other extreme is the Naturalist (phenomenon) school. In between these philosophical poles are the metaphysical bridge builders 
who have attempted to integrate the thoughts of the opposing school with their own. These divisions of thought, which I will discuss in detail below, do not necessarily parallel inductive/deductive divisions of reason, nor do they completely distinguish the different concepts of the empirical order. More importantly, this classification system is a clarifying paradigm which offers a way to understand the warfare of Plato against the 5th century B.C. Sophists and Leo Straus juxtaposed against the behavioral theorist of today. The same dialectic over the nature of the ‘good’ rages on in America today. In short, this system provides for a distinction of values, origin of values (not merely ideas) and potential to achieve the ‘best’ values. As we will see, this division offers insights not possible with idealist, materialist, realist, and pragmatist divisions. By using this metaphysical paradigm, along with its manifested societal patterns of behavior and motivation, I will trace the development of the American common identity that determines our national interest and then clarify this national interest through the case example of United States’ foreign policy in Latin America.More to follow in a couple days...
No comments:
Post a Comment