Perry the Philosopher?
I missed most of the debate tonight (class, bummer) but came in just in time to hear some expert question-dodging by Gov. Perry: When asked about his views on American Adventurism, he refused to say anything about Bush's foreign policy (as I recall), instead praising Obama for keeping Gitmo open and the Navy Seals for getting Osama.
Then he insisted that his adventurism comment was purely philosophical, and that was that.
Huh?
I only got a B+ in Philosophy 101, but I'm pretty sure that if you're talking about how you decide when to invade which countries, you're a far cry from the realm of pure philosophy. Philosophical beliefs will naturally inform foreign policy decisions –– in the same way that they inform all our decisions –– but there's a huge difference between choosing where and when to drop bombs and arguing about whether or not existence precedes essence.
And if Perry's comments on adventurism had no bearing on the real world, then how are we supposed to know what he believes about foreign policy? I'm sincerely curious about how he feels about Iraq (Has he said anything specific? If anyone knows, please post a link.)
A hasty Google search turned up a snarky article from ForeignPolicy.com which provided an interesting quote from a recent speech:
"It's a dangerous world that we live in today. As the 10th anniversary of the attacks of 9/11 approach, we must renew our commitment to taking the fight to the enemy, wherever they are, before they strike at home."
Is this also merely a philosophical statement? Or is it an outright endorsement of neoconservative foreign policy?
Is there a difference between fighting the enemy before they attack us, wherever they are (n.b.: They're kind of all over) and adventurism?
- Comment (3)
- · Quote
- · UnfollowFollow (0)
Comments:
Dec '10
Re: Perry the Philosopher?
It was a hasty and poorly worded dodge, and "adventurism" was obviously intended to be vague. My impression is that he was trying to resist an invitation to more conservative cannibalism.
While Perry needs to be much more precise in his choice of words, I don't see how it benefits him to spell out a litmus for foreign military intervention. Any definitive position he takes will simply open him up to greater scrutiny. By talking about adventurism he gives off the impression of being cautious without looking weak like Obama or extreme like Ron Paul.
I know we need to be diligent in vetting our candidates but serving them up to a hostile media environment seems counter productive to the discovery of truth.
Re: Perry the Philosopher?
I think if a presidential candidate cannot answer a hostile media environment, they probably will have a difficult time facing a hostile world. Philosophy needs to meet the road at some point.
Re: Perry the Philosopher?
It seems that philosophy can meet the road in the branch of ethics. Sadly, in many US forms of authority--dialogue in churches, local and federal governments--there seems to be little to no interest in ethics. Perhaps this stems from the American trend toward anti-intellectualism (at the risk of generalizing). In a philosophy of religion class we began the class with a distinction between practical philosophy and theoretical philosophy. In the West we have tended toward the later--however, to the ancients (Stoic philosophers and the like), theoretical philosophy was only useful insofar as it lent to the practice of day to day wisdom--practical philosophy. In America especially, people should fight for a view of philosophy that informs day to day decisions of governance, foreign policy and lifestyle by seeing its direct connection to ethics.
Edited on September 9, 2011 at 10:02am