Am I anti-Wilsonian?
There is a blog called Wilson Revolution Unplugged, by J.K. Baltzersen. By him I got my first warm welcome in my comment section by a fellow blogger. But I objected to his description of me as anti-Wilsonian. Let me explain why.
In my previous entry I strongly criticized the way the concept of democracy is used nowadays. This comes from the dogma of democratism, the idea of democracy as the only way. I believe in particularism and different solutions for different societies, depending on history and context. However, this position doesn't make me anti-democratic. E.g. I see Denmark as a country which democracy serves well. It's the idea of democracy as the only way, that I strongly object to.
Likewise with Wilson. I strongly object to the idea of the Wilsonian world order of a common organized peace as the only way. And more specifically, I see that we have come to a point in history where this world order is doomed and will have to be abandoned. This doesn't automatically lead to the conclusion that the Wilsonian world order has been wrong all along the way, and in all major aspects. That's a different discussion, and one that--in spite of being highly interesting--is looking to the past, instead of into the future.
Modern people cannot imagine anything different from democracy or Wilsonian world order. It's ingrained into their mindset at the deepest level. So, my primary intention is to open up a dialog about these things. My primary intention is to encourage them to think; to open their minds to the very rich world of ideas outside of the glass bubble of democratism and Wilsonianism.
5 comments:
Thank you for your followup of our discussion.
Would you then agree to being called a skeptic of Wilsonianism – instead of an outright anti-Wilsonian? Or would that still be going too far?
I simply want to see an end to the Wilsonian world order. That's, of course, much more than being a skeptic. But I prefer to not call it--or any of my positions--an anti-position. It makes it sound like you have taken a position in some extreme point. My position is a balanced and moderate position. It's people who take anti-positions, that end up like President Wilson. He was anti-old-order. By doing the opposite of something bad/stupid, one will just end up being bad/stupid oneself.
I hope this makes it clearer.
Sounds sensible.
Thank you. I will follow your blog with interest.
Extreme positions are not succeeded by moderate ones, but by contrary extreme postions.
A continuing error in failing to understand the lack of democratic success in those many places attempting one or another form of democracy, is lack of law. Hernando DeSoto type law- property law. It has no glamour. Worse, it is the antithesis of Marxism by it's nature. Yet the profound implications found at it's core were described two centuries ago by Fischer Ames: By securing property, life and liberty can scarcely fail of being secured; where property is is safe by rules and priciples, there is liberty, for the object and motives of tyranny are removed.
Most governments are loathe to give up power, so little progress has been seen in this. Our (American) government is aquiring evermore power through taxation and regulation. That is the natural order of things.
Post a Comment