I know that the state of the world today has left many people very jaded & cynical about political activism, leaving only the most fervent hippies still clinging to idealist dreams that "another world is possible." I've always been too much of a pessimist, I suppose, to really believe that the "revolution's a'coming", and thus have been floundering for a position that combines this pessimistic streak with an objective, concerned global view and a strong sense of ethics.
To this end, on my commute you can find me reading "The Best Democracy Money Can Buy," Greg Palast's collection of corporate scandal exposés (basically, "free trade & capitalism are evil") or The Economist's "Capitalism and Democracy" issue last week (basically, "free trade & capitalism are wonderful, except for cronyism, which is a problem, but free trade is still the best thing since sliced bread").
This month's Mother Jones features two articles helping to refine this view, that of the "realist activist." They're both definitely worth a read. The second one, the cover article, is by the author of "A Bed for the Night: Humanitarianism in Crisis" which has been on my "to-read" list for a year now.
So check'em out: Paved With Good Intentions (use subscriber code MJ3203) and Goodbye, New World Order (free). What do you think?
Posted by cce at July 8, 2003 12:20 PM | TrackBackI've been reading Power Trip: U.S. Unilateralism and Global Strategy After September 11. It certainly helps put into perspective exactly how the current global strategy came into being, and that it's really nothing new--it just so happens that Sept. 11 was the perfect opportunity for the neoconservatives to put their plans into action.
Posted by: Julian at July 8, 2003 04:56 PMre the first article: the military-industrial "moral clarity" so popular among neocons and unilateralists these days is not the brand i buy. while i'm 100% convinced that the america outlined in the constitution is the best available system of government, i don't believe that we're obligated to install it elsewhere, especially when we're not even doing it right ourselves. sometimes i want to howl and spit and imprecate at the imperialist PNAC idealists who play fast and loose with the principles on which our nation was founded (by the ultimate IDEALIST LIBERALS, i might add).
re the second article: realism is a style of painting. pragmatism, which is what the article is talking about, is great for most people to embrace, but it's important not to underestimate the need for radical idealists. they (a) define the boundaries of debate, and (b) are the ones who drive society toward progress.
call me excessively optimistic or whatever else you want ("pedantic," "annoying"), but i still believe in the possibility of a global community built on the essential principle that all humans are basically alike.
Posted by: ben at July 10, 2003 09:06 PM