While there are exceptions, those who want to change US foreign policy must understand that many, if not most, of its practitioners believe (however misguidedly) that they're doing the right thing.
I really appreciate this perspective, Daniel. One broad paradigmatic gap that I've observed between the anti-imperial left and the traditional foreign policy establishment is that the left approaches the issues in purely moral/justice/ethical terms (rightly, in my view) while the traditional foreign policy establishment's approach has a moral substrate (US power is good) but is truly realpolitik in nature. This conceptual mismatch results in a nearly complete breakdown of any common language or relationship between the two sides which serves to further entrench each side in demonizing the other.
Taking your argument, I think it's perfectly rational to NOT expect the foreign policy establishment to suddenly begin seeing these issues in the same starkly moral terms I see them, for instance. But WE on the left could begin building up compelling realpolitik-focused arguments and institutions that iteratively shift the Overton Window in the direction of anti-imperialism and take seriously the oversize role of the US in the world without conceding that US power is good. That's a tough needle to thread but I think entities like Foreign Exchanges and shows like American Prestige and Blowback move us further in that conceptual direction.
What evidence do you have for the claim that Blinken et al. believe they're part of some "progressive" approach to imperialism? Taking their word for it, or the handful of people you know who espouse this sentiment seems anecdotal at best.
This also seems besides the point since taking these levers of power is putting the cart before the horse. Until the left has actual power in the US in some form, either through wealth or truly organized labor that can actively impede the wealthy from profiting exponentially, there's no mechanism to take over some entrenched managerial class of state department goons and think tank folks.
I really appreciate this perspective, Daniel. One broad paradigmatic gap that I've observed between the anti-imperial left and the traditional foreign policy establishment is that the left approaches the issues in purely moral/justice/ethical terms (rightly, in my view) while the traditional foreign policy establishment's approach has a moral substrate (US power is good) but is truly realpolitik in nature. This conceptual mismatch results in a nearly complete breakdown of any common language or relationship between the two sides which serves to further entrench each side in demonizing the other.
Taking your argument, I think it's perfectly rational to NOT expect the foreign policy establishment to suddenly begin seeing these issues in the same starkly moral terms I see them, for instance. But WE on the left could begin building up compelling realpolitik-focused arguments and institutions that iteratively shift the Overton Window in the direction of anti-imperialism and take seriously the oversize role of the US in the world without conceding that US power is good. That's a tough needle to thread but I think entities like Foreign Exchanges and shows like American Prestige and Blowback move us further in that conceptual direction.
What evidence do you have for the claim that Blinken et al. believe they're part of some "progressive" approach to imperialism? Taking their word for it, or the handful of people you know who espouse this sentiment seems anecdotal at best.
This also seems besides the point since taking these levers of power is putting the cart before the horse. Until the left has actual power in the US in some form, either through wealth or truly organized labor that can actively impede the wealthy from profiting exponentially, there's no mechanism to take over some entrenched managerial class of state department goons and think tank folks.