Postmodern classic?

Sunday, November 27, 2005

The perils of cosmopolitanism

Cosmopolitanism: my definition is that of an identification with an international interest that transcends the local/national. Historically, this has been part of the appeal of leftist/communist movements, but one can appreciate it when they consider the shortcomings of their own country.

David Ignatius in the WaPo this morning had an echo of this, but luckily there is a reply. Someone to logically refute this defeatist nonsense. I remember hearing that crap at school, or abroad from foreigners or even my own brow-beaten countrymen: the US is the cause of the worlds problems, no one likes us, etc... Let me be clear, my country isn't perfect and I'm willing to discuss that. But nonetheless, and in a respectful manner, that doesn't mean I will unquestioningly bow to someone else's perceived grievance.

Via Glenn Greenwald, blogging from Brazil:

"While such trends may be upsetting to some, they cannot reasonably be used to argue that American foreign policy is misguided. Any nation would be acting foolishly, and self-destructively, if it allowed its foreign policy to be guided by the threat perceptions of people in other countries. When it comes to facing the profound threat posed to American interests by Islamic extremism, it is naturally the case that people in other countries will view the danger posed by that threat as being less serious and important than Americans perceive it to be."

If the Israeli's had listened to the sanctimonious UN or Europe, where would they be now? No, instead we must accept the idea that people can disagree and still work together. The idea of a harmonious world is a relic of utopian communist propaganda. If you're not part of the solution, chances are you are part of the problem.

There are some things that are worth disagreeing over. As is often said, read the whole thing.


Post a Comment

<< Home