morally superior foreign policies

Most People Think Their Nation's Foreign Policy Is Morally No Better Than Average: Global Poll

Quote:

---

The world is full of nationalistic people certain that their country is morally superior to others, right? Actually, a new WorldPublicOpinion.org poll of 21 nations around the world finds that people can be remarkably modest.

Asked to assess the morality of their nation's foreign policy, in 19 out of 21 nations the most common answer is that their nation is about average or below average.

In the United States, about half (49%) say the morality of US foreign policy is average with another 16 percent saying it is below average. Just 24 percent say it is above average.

...

Across all nations, the most common answer is that their nation's foreign policy is about average, with 41 percent giving this response. The view that their nation is above average is only slightly higher than the view that it is below average--24 percent said it is above average while 21 percent said it is below average.

"People around the world may actually be more realistic than is often assumed," comments Steven Kull, director of WorldPublicOpinion.org, a collaborative project of research centers around the world managed by the Program on International Policy Attitudes (PIPA) at the University of Maryland.

...

Asked to assess the morality of other major nations, people around the world tend to feel that all of the major nations are about average.

The nation to get the most negative ratings is China, with six nations saying that its foreign policy is below average (France 60%, Germany 58%, US 57%, Great Britain 53%, South Korea 53% and Italy 45%). Overall 28 percent say China is below average, 15 percent above average, and 34 percent average.

...

Views of America's foreign policy are the most mixed. While five nations predominantly say it is below average (Palestinians 61%, Germans 55%, Russians 52%, Turks 45%, and Argentines 40%), two nations predominantly say it is above average (Kenya 56%, and Nigeria 48%). Overall, the US has the largest number worldwide saying it is below average (32%), but it also has one of the highest numbers saying it is above average (20%). Overall, 29 percent say it is about average.

...

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rex Brynen

Most People Think Their Nation's Foreign Policy Is Morally No Better Than Average: Global Poll

---

And Roger.

This may be, in the case of the so named "Western Democracies" an extension of our focus on the democratic theory which GW Bush so perfectly elocuted in his second inaugural (much better weather effects that time), namely that democracies do not fight each other.

Not entirely true but divorced from this theory the US would likely forsake the mantle of neo-conservatism and regress splendidly into non-interventionism if not isolationism.

As such your above posting would need to re-assess for the body of believers that there is no good foreign policy except none at all, which is a legitimate and widely held undercurrent of US Populism and Nationalism both.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bullmoose Bailey

Not entirely true but divorced from this theory the US would likely forsake the mantle of neo-conservatism

---

Good.

Quote:

---

and regress splendidly into non-interventionism if not isolationism.

---

I think that's somewhat of an extreme assumption, if not borderline silly.

Quote:

---

As such your above posting would need to re-assess for the body of believers that there is no good foreign policy except none at all, which is a legitimate and widely held undercurrent of US Populism and Nationalism both.

---

Again, I believe this is an incorrect assumption. Granted, a small portion of the population would probably like our nation to be isolationist (extreme pacifists). I think most people just want our leaders to do the right thing; i.e., send our military to fight only when necessary and spend our tax dollars on worthwhile endeavors.

whilst being in your later "most people just want our..." group I perceive a great many non-interventionists as not exactly pacifists.

Have many in my own family & respect their hatred of the waste that so often occurs as SOP in foreign entanglement.

General Washington said it best;

"The great rule of conduct for us, in regard to foreign nations, is in extending our commercial relations, to have with them as little political connection as possible. Europe has a set of primary interests, which to us have none, or a very remote relation. Hence she must be engaged in frequent controversies the causes of which are essentially foreign to our concerns. Hence, therefore, it must be unwise in us to implicate ourselves, by artificial ties, in the ordinary vicissitudes of her politics, or the ordinary combinations and collisions of her friendships or enmities."

I would say that "Joe Six Pack" wants the US to be isolationist, but at the slightest insult to the US, he wants to see lots and lots of dead furriners on the evening news, in order to show them gooks what for.

The majority of citizens that I've met that want the US isolationist are a bloodthirsty lot. They want isolationism, but with the military ability to kill foreigners and lay waste to foreign cities at the slightest provocation.

Not quite a pacifist, them.

In this and other areas, too many terms are used which mean one thing to the writer and another thing to the reader.

Not picking on anyone - just as an example. An "extreme pacifist" is not necessarily (IMO, often not) an "isolationist" - e.g., various World Peace movements.

Similarly (this is somewhat self-descriptive), a "reluctant interventionist" in military matters can be a "militarist" when military interventions occur. Yet, the same person can be an "avid interventionist" in foreign trade and commerce by private entitites - but can view governmental intervention in those matters as being negative.

So also with polls, which often are built on pithy aphorisms. What is meant by "moral superiority" ? I suspect that the practical examples of that, if given by various respondents, would cover a broad spectrum.

PS: 120mm - wouldn't quite phrase it as your "Joe Six Pack" example does. But, yes, find, fix and kill our brethren who hit us, say a prayer for their souls, and if they show up dead on TV, OK. Also can see hitting them before they hit us (targeted killing), but that has to be done with great discernment. Laying waste to cities seems extreme (even though I can see an example of that in a retaliatory nuclear strike).

Thus, the need for concrete examples - as 120mm has done with Joe, and BB with GW.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jmm99

In this and other areas, too many terms are used which mean one thing to the writer and another thing to the reader.

Not picking on anyone - just as an example. An "extreme pacifist" is not necessarily (IMO, often not) an "isolationist" - e.g., various World Peace movements.

Similarly (this is somewhat self-descriptive), a "reluctant interventionist" in military matters can be a "militarist" when military interventions occur. Yet, the same person can be an "avid interventionist" in foreign trade and commerce by private entitites - but can view governmental intervention in those matters as being negative.

So also with polls, which often are built on pithy aphorisms. What is meant by "moral superiority" ? I suspect that the practical examples of that, if given by various respondents, would cover a broad spectrum.

PS: 120mm - wouldn't quite phrase it as your "Joe Six Pack" example does. But, yes, find, fix and kill our brethren who hit us, say a prayer for their souls, and if they show up dead on TV, OK. Also can see hitting them before they hit us (targeted killing), but that has to be done with great discernment. Laying waste to cities seems extreme (even though I can see an example of that in a retaliatory nuclear strike).

Thus, the need for concrete examples - as 120mm has done with Joe, and BB with GW.

---

Exactly.

Very well said.

This is why I totally confuse people when I say that George W Bush was a "Liberal Internationalist who advocated Pre-emptive Strikes."

Also; can all this be true if I have no objection to "Joe Six-Pack" or "Furriners" ? Or does it just make me a moderate ?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jmm99

PS: 120mm - wouldn't quite phrase it as your "Joe Six Pack" example does. But, yes, find, fix and kill our brethren who hit us, say a prayer for their souls, and if they show up dead on TV, OK. Also can see hitting them before they hit us (targeted killing), but that has to be done with great discernment. Laying waste to cities seems extreme (even though I can see an example of that in a retaliatory nuclear strike).

---

There is something more valid here. If you are going to harm your enemy you should do so, in a way that ensures he never recovers, or cannot recover in a useful amount of time. Yes, pure Nick Machiavelli, and history shows it as being generally true. Better to get 30 years of peace, than 5.

It's interesting that China is often lauded as the up-and-coming superpower as much for its spreading soft power as for its rising economic might. This study suggests that China may yet lag behind the US in this area as well.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Nathan Hale

It's interesting that China is often lauded as the up-and-coming superpower as much for its spreading soft power as for its rising economic might. This study suggests that China may yet lag behind the US in this area as well.

---

I'd actually suggest that China does not use "soft power".

It uses real and actual power, and what it is doing in Africa is a very good example. They seek all out competitive advantage, purely in their own interest, and with little in the way of ideological or diplomatic constraints. They get a very good return for every $ they put into Africa, and they don't care who they deal with, or what that involves.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by William F. Owen

There is something more valid here. If you are going to harm your enemy you should do so, in a way that ensures he never recovers, or cannot recover in a useful amount of time. Yes, pure Nick Machiavelli, and history shows it as being generally true. Better to get 30 years of peace, than 5.

---

Of course, if your "enemy" is either not really your "enemy" or is not "hittable" militarily, you, my friend, are screwed. :o

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 120mm

Of course, if your "enemy" is either not really your "enemy" or is not "hittable" militarily, you, my friend, are screwed. :o

---

Concur. Gross stupidity and impossible dilemmas should be avoided. Let history be your guide, not your master.