Oxford Dictionaries define “ad hominem” as an argument “directed against a person rather than the position they are maintaining.” It is therefore disappointing that in his article about libertarianism and foreign policy in The American Conservative, my former colleague at the Cato Institute, Doug Bandow, spends as much time dissecting the nationality of his opponents as he does engaging with their arguments.
He mentions Garry Kasparov, “a celebrity Russian living in the West” who purportedly argues “that it is the job of Americans, with maybe a couple Europeans tossed in, to destroy ISIS, save Syria, pacify the Mideast, contain Russia, save Ukraine, and more.” He then brings up me, “Slovak Dalibor Rohac, ensconced at the American Enterprise Institute,” and the three libertarian activists who founded the website I Don’t Support Ron Paul, which criticizes Mr. Paul’s wholesale parroting of the Kremlin’s propaganda. The three are introduced not by their names, or affiliations, or by their previous work, but only as “Europeans—Lithuanian, Russian, Swedish,” as if that had any bearing on the merits of their, or my, arguments.
Shutterstock.
Actually, in Mr. Bandow’s world, it does. Before proceeding with a laundry list of canonical ‘realist’ criticisms of US foreign interventions – some of which are true, albeit in a largely trivial sense, and some of which are just wrong – he notes that our respective arguments in favor of an active foreign policy for the United States make sense “only so long as one isn’t paying the cost of the foreign policy.”
Following that logic, one is left wondering how to account for the foreign policy views of Mr. Bandow’s colleagues at Cato, such as Richard Epstein and Roger Pilon – both with impeccable American credentials, a deep appreciation of classical liberal ideas, and very little patience for the stubbornness with which some libertarians reject the notion that America should be playing an active role in the world.
The subheading of his article carries a warning for Mr. Bandow’s countrymen: “Americans who want liberty at home should be wary of expats who seek US intervention abroad.” For a committed non-interventionist, it may be tempting to dismiss international calls for stronger American leadership in the world as an instance of “liberals from other nations [continuing] to lobby Washington to advance their home countries’ interests. No surprise there.” But doing that — instead of reflecting on the substance of such pleas — does little to advance a conversation about a matter that is of grave importance to this country and to the rest of the world.
from AEI » Latest Content http://ift.tt/1Z3bYqa
0 التعليقات:
Post a Comment