Scan barcode
ncesare's review against another edition
4.0
This is a good introduction to foreign policy issues for leftists. I recommend reading it to see where you agree and disagree with Walzer and then formulating your own views on foreign policy from there.
The Contents:
This book is made up of nine essays, adapted to each make up a chapter. There is no original work here — this book is a collection of Walzer's and others' existing views on foreign policy.
In Walzer's view, foreign policy on the left is currently dominated by what he calls "the default position." The default position is roughly this: a leftist government should remain neutral on foreign conflicts and instead focus on inward improvement. This inward improvement will serve as an example for the rest of the world, giving oppressed peoples the tools to pull themselves out of oppression.
Walzer's project in the book is to argue against the default position.
The core of Walzer's own position is that leftists must disengage from Manichean thinking about foreign policy issues, where international conflicts can only be broken down in terms of good and evil actors. Thus, where some on the left see only "America bad, therefore China good," Walzer would have us be critical of American hegemony while denouncing oppressive regimes who happen to be anti-American.
Some of the best work in the book has to do with the limits of humanitarian intervention (largely adapted from Walzer's Just and Unjust Wars) and his insistence that leftist values (e.g. worker's rights, democratic representation, etc) be used as a measuring stick for regimes in the global South, as well as wealthy Western powers.
The Good:
-Walzer rightly argues against the default position and a variety of foreign policy shortcuts adopted by leftists. Shortcuts such as "American is always wrong," "all foreign wars are imperialist and should be opposed on such grounds," or "support every government or movement that describes itself as anti-imperialist."
-This book provides hints of a future where a left-leaning superpower could intervene in principled ways to stifle the spread of authoritarianism and support oppressed peoples around the world.
The Bad:
-Walzer inexplicably seems concerned about religion as a causal factor in global harms. He dismisses the common view on the left that self-identified Islamic terrorists are primarily motivated by material conditions, such as poverty and endless war spurned on by foreign (primarily American) interventions. Walzer rightly calls some leftists out for their overzealous approach towards Islamaphobia, but he never really explains his view that religion is a causal factor for terrorism, rather than material conditions.
-Sometimes it's not clear who Walzer is arguing against. For example, at various points in the book he denounces leftists who think that the Taliban is good because of its anti-imperialist activity. In the final essay, he admonishes leftists who celebrated 9/11 as righteous judgment for American interventionism in the Middle East. However, are there really leftists who seriously believe these things? I have a hard time believing that there are.
Conclusion:
Overall this book is worth reading. For the most part, Walzer argues his points well and, even when you disagree with him, you can still take away useful information.
I also have to separate myself from some reviewers here who have characterized Walzer's foreign policy as liberal or as consistent with the mainstream views of the Democratic Party in the United States. I don't think this is the case and in places where the rhetoric seems similar, that probably has more to do with liberals paying lip service to ideas from *Just and Unjust Wars* (published in 1977) than Walzer modeling his views off of liberal foreign policy.
The Contents:
This book is made up of nine essays, adapted to each make up a chapter. There is no original work here — this book is a collection of Walzer's and others' existing views on foreign policy.
In Walzer's view, foreign policy on the left is currently dominated by what he calls "the default position." The default position is roughly this: a leftist government should remain neutral on foreign conflicts and instead focus on inward improvement. This inward improvement will serve as an example for the rest of the world, giving oppressed peoples the tools to pull themselves out of oppression.
Walzer's project in the book is to argue against the default position.
The core of Walzer's own position is that leftists must disengage from Manichean thinking about foreign policy issues, where international conflicts can only be broken down in terms of good and evil actors. Thus, where some on the left see only "America bad, therefore China good," Walzer would have us be critical of American hegemony while denouncing oppressive regimes who happen to be anti-American.
Some of the best work in the book has to do with the limits of humanitarian intervention (largely adapted from Walzer's Just and Unjust Wars) and his insistence that leftist values (e.g. worker's rights, democratic representation, etc) be used as a measuring stick for regimes in the global South, as well as wealthy Western powers.
The Good:
-Walzer rightly argues against the default position and a variety of foreign policy shortcuts adopted by leftists. Shortcuts such as "American is always wrong," "all foreign wars are imperialist and should be opposed on such grounds," or "support every government or movement that describes itself as anti-imperialist."
-This book provides hints of a future where a left-leaning superpower could intervene in principled ways to stifle the spread of authoritarianism and support oppressed peoples around the world.
The Bad:
-Walzer inexplicably seems concerned about religion as a causal factor in global harms. He dismisses the common view on the left that self-identified Islamic terrorists are primarily motivated by material conditions, such as poverty and endless war spurned on by foreign (primarily American) interventions. Walzer rightly calls some leftists out for their overzealous approach towards Islamaphobia, but he never really explains his view that religion is a causal factor for terrorism, rather than material conditions.
-Sometimes it's not clear who Walzer is arguing against. For example, at various points in the book he denounces leftists who think that the Taliban is good because of its anti-imperialist activity. In the final essay, he admonishes leftists who celebrated 9/11 as righteous judgment for American interventionism in the Middle East. However, are there really leftists who seriously believe these things? I have a hard time believing that there are.
Conclusion:
Overall this book is worth reading. For the most part, Walzer argues his points well and, even when you disagree with him, you can still take away useful information.
I also have to separate myself from some reviewers here who have characterized Walzer's foreign policy as liberal or as consistent with the mainstream views of the Democratic Party in the United States. I don't think this is the case and in places where the rhetoric seems similar, that probably has more to do with liberals paying lip service to ideas from *Just and Unjust Wars* (published in 1977) than Walzer modeling his views off of liberal foreign policy.
More...