Prior to the heads of Turkish protesters systematic, Henry Kissinger and Milton Friedman are two masters with oddly similar fates. Usually presented as two men of the System, will be shown here that this is nothing and that on the contrary, these two troublemakers were, each in their field, dethroned the conventional wisdom and prevented the expression of trends United States.
Immigrant and son of Jewish immigrants, some parties, achieved excellence, masters of their disciplines, the prince's advisers, admired their peers, they fought their separate ideas gained from their time, stood against the trends that we believe could be final: the Keynesian economics for an idealism in international relations to each other. One time they managed to turn the tide, to counteract the phenomenon of a side extension of the state and the tendency of economists to justify its intervention, on the other side of idealism in Western countries. These victories do should not last because the ideas they had thwarted deep roots and they opposed the demonstrations were erased with them.
One was awarded a Nobel Prize in Economics (1976), the other for peace (1973). Certainly one of these two prices is political (but not who you think).
Neither was interested in the discipline of another.
Milton Friedman has never written anything on diplomacy to my knowledge, neither prescribes a foreign policy doctrine.
As Kissinger presents a singular lack of responsiveness to ideas economic. Despite his great qualities we tend to see him in ignorance of the famous specialist who goes out of scope. In a rare excursion into economics, in his memoirs, he was convinced by the Pompidou's character would have catastrophic release of exchange rates ... For the record, he needed support in math when he was young.
The two advisors were of the same prince, Richard Nixon, but with a difference of obvious influence: Kissinger was damned soul; Friedman, whose ideas had not yet triomphées was instead often frustrated by the conduct Nixon: Policy inflation, price controls interim (by calculation demagogic and more). (Correction: not by the destruction of the gold standard as I mentioned in a previous version).
Both opérèrent a break today and it appears that they were not definitive and that the ordinary course of things was reattached.
I) Rupture of Milton Friedman
The paradigm to which Milton Friedman is opposed Keynesianism as everyone knows. A great advantage of this doctrine for politicians is that it justifies state intervention in the economic field. Rather than criminalizing Friedman the perverse effects of interventionism.
In particular, Friedman has criticized the policies based on an analysis of the Phillips curve, which asserts that political power has the power to arbitrate between unemployment and inflation (the Keynesian Phelps has also demonstrated the futility and negative such long-term policies).
The failure of Keynesian stimulation of the 70s and the inability to explain the phenomenon of stagflation (inflation and unemployment simultaneously) leads to the success of Friedman's monetarist theories. The party is over: the State should intervene less. Nevertheless
Friedman's theory, which requires a certain policy inaction, between door-to-step with the vocation of politics. Friedman is indirectly responsible for the establishment of independent central banks even if he personally opposed as not finding the Democratic measure. The state in turn is brought to continually expand its scope. And there was the closing of the divestment of its heritage.
II) The failure of Henry Kissinger
As shown by the famous epistemologist Karl Popper, a large bias runs the Western world: the belief in the character manifest the truth, which means that the truth stands before us and that is enough to remove barriers to seize it. To summarize: tails, this prejudice has our scientific development, opposite side: witch-hunting (in fact it is in modern times and not the Middle Ages that has burned more of the witches). This prejudice is reflected in political progressivism that encourages us to progress but has a deplorable tendency to blacken the past and blame.
Progressivism West manifests itself in two ways in the interpretation of international relations.
Outside the U.S.: the existence of evil, the lack of democracy and tyranny, we explain these phenomena, not by causes but by the endogenous action of a malicious entity. Now the U.S. is the most powerful country in the world. Since we do lend to the rich, the USA are regularly charged any disorder, coup and war (and even earthquakes). There are countless people who believe that having a critical means for keeping the U.S. guilty without evidence.
Inside the U.S.: progressivism embodied in the desire to expand the world economic system and politics is democracy, free markets, freedom of the press etc.. This translates into an idealistic foreign policy, that is to say, liberal in the vocabulary of international relations.
is this doctrine which leads to the interventions of the U.S. military abroad: involvement in the war of 14-18 is based on the ideal of the right of peoples to self-same, 39-45 is in the fight against Nazism, the commitments of the Cold War against communism.
optimistic view of this trend, there is the realist, intellectually brilliant but whose requirements are opposed to the underlying trends the country: there are Kennan (the author of the doctrine of containment, realistic in its prescription, idealistic in its execution), Morgenthau and Kissinger course.
When Kissinger became the adviser to President Richard Nixon, the country is already mired in the Vietnam War. It will continue the war as a withdrawal without a peace agreement would destroy the credibility of the United States from its allies during the Cold War. If
Kissinger will be able to conduct its policy realist, because American idealism is the ground: the sinking of the United States in the Vietnam War with its dead, its massacres, its scandals made doubt the United States. His people lose faith in the universality of its values. That time of My Lai , where it was discovered that the U.S. Army was an army like any other, no more heroic and sometimes disgusting. How can a just war could soon lead to the sadistic slaughter of a village?
This situation is untenable for the Left. The Democratic establishment in power dissolves suddenly disappears and Johnson does not even represent. Great depression. Public opinion began to turn. It is in these circumstances that Kissinger came to power under the wing of Nixon and then will conduct its policy. The festival is finite foreign countries do not want our armed imperialism of good intentions.
Kissinger meant to deal with non-democratic when it is in the interest of the country and the rapprochement with China as those who saw communist countries as a bloc could not imagine the ideology from the second plan, as well as the relative support for the South American dictatorships to prevent implantation of countries subject to Moscow - a fear that appears excessive in retrospect.
A realistic policy goal is not only the relative elevation of the country, it seeks the balance of power, not simply effect of these policies but a goal. It also aims to maintain an international order which is nothing to suggest that a different configuration would be better, besides the fact that his birth would not happen without convulsion.
Thus Kissinger noted that criticism of the Shah for its lack of democracy has resulted in the end a regime worse than to refer the responsibility of the Cambodian genocide to the anti-war, emphasized that a rigid application of principles is a source conflict.
But pushing the promotion of democratic ideals, Kissinger harbored suspicion against his country, suspected of acting for reasons reactionary or interested. He ate inside. It would indeed be a contradiction to see a fight there right / left. In reality this should be a straight shoot down idealism of the legacy of Kissinger: neoconservatism.
III) temporary disruptions
Friedman and Kissinger had won a battle, especially through their will and personality, but the trends they were fighting had deep roots: the intervention of the state and in Western idealism international relations phenomena are resilient. Both men had won a fight intellectual but trends remained. Their ideas would in turn be overturned. The vector of this reversal should not be debate. These were the passions that would lead the assault.
Kissinger had few allies, it was attacked by both the left and doves by the hawks of the right. They do not forgive him relax, which they interpreted as a retreat. In other words, Kissinger was faced with the idealism of the left and right! By attacking Kissinger, left, was felt to attack the right. In reality it provided ammunition for critics of Kissinger worst, the neoconservatives, whose doctrine command to export by force of arms if need democracy.
Kissinger is not forbidden, it was quickly taken for granted that what he was accused were true. Regardless of lack of evidence. In particular it appears to many people acquired the coup against Allende in 1973 bears the imprint of Kissinger. In fact his involvement has never been demonstrated that despite the vast amount of open archives. (This obsession to involve in my opinion reveals Kissinger's refusal to admit that this move has causes endogenous)
After a few years the neoconservatives took power and legacy of Kissinger was rejected. Idealism was back. Certainly one does not understand foreign policy of the United States if we do not want to see it is guided by idealism and not, as the fans believe the conspiracy theory, by material interests more or less secret. From Woodrow Wilson to George W Bush through Kennedy, the United States are the heralds of progressivism, liberalism and democracy. The United States has a military force that they want to use to improve the world and promote their values. It is promoting them they are looking and not material gain when they engage in Europe in 1917, in 1941, creating the United Nations, in adopting the doctrine of containment that requires them to intervene anywhere for that to fight evil absolute communism, trying the Iraq adventure to liquidate a socialist dictatorship and hope to reform the greater Middle East does not understand the mistrust and resistance they provoke. How many times does he repeat it?
As Friedman, it was decided that it was a big fan of South American dictatorships and the architect of privatization conducted through state terrorism see the thesis of the essay writer Naomi Klein. More generally it has been held for the financial architect of the configuration currently in crisis. To fell
Kissinger has been called cynical doctrine. To fell Friedman, said of his doctrine that it was undemocratic and vicious. Each time it was explained that these doctrines revealed the truth of the United States, accounted for his system, while not specifically they had neutralized the underlying trends of this country. Ruse of history, the overthrow of these doctrines are presented as a work of subversion when it was actually a reaction that allowed Return to the natural tendencies of the United States: idealism and interventionism.
loss of influence of the doctrines of the two men were found today: abysmal deficits and increasing state control over society on the one hand, wars in Iraq and Afghanistan to install democracy on the other.
Immigrant and son of Jewish immigrants, some parties, achieved excellence, masters of their disciplines, the prince's advisers, admired their peers, they fought their separate ideas gained from their time, stood against the trends that we believe could be final: the Keynesian economics for an idealism in international relations to each other. One time they managed to turn the tide, to counteract the phenomenon of a side extension of the state and the tendency of economists to justify its intervention, on the other side of idealism in Western countries. These victories do should not last because the ideas they had thwarted deep roots and they opposed the demonstrations were erased with them.
One was awarded a Nobel Prize in Economics (1976), the other for peace (1973). Certainly one of these two prices is political (but not who you think).
Neither was interested in the discipline of another.
Milton Friedman has never written anything on diplomacy to my knowledge, neither prescribes a foreign policy doctrine.
As Kissinger presents a singular lack of responsiveness to ideas economic. Despite his great qualities we tend to see him in ignorance of the famous specialist who goes out of scope. In a rare excursion into economics, in his memoirs, he was convinced by the Pompidou's character would have catastrophic release of exchange rates ... For the record, he needed support in math when he was young.
The two advisors were of the same prince, Richard Nixon, but with a difference of obvious influence: Kissinger was damned soul; Friedman, whose ideas had not yet triomphées was instead often frustrated by the conduct Nixon: Policy inflation, price controls interim (by calculation demagogic and more). (Correction: not by the destruction of the gold standard as I mentioned in a previous version).
Both opérèrent a break today and it appears that they were not definitive and that the ordinary course of things was reattached.
I) Rupture of Milton Friedman
The paradigm to which Milton Friedman is opposed Keynesianism as everyone knows. A great advantage of this doctrine for politicians is that it justifies state intervention in the economic field. Rather than criminalizing Friedman the perverse effects of interventionism.
In particular, Friedman has criticized the policies based on an analysis of the Phillips curve, which asserts that political power has the power to arbitrate between unemployment and inflation (the Keynesian Phelps has also demonstrated the futility and negative such long-term policies).
The failure of Keynesian stimulation of the 70s and the inability to explain the phenomenon of stagflation (inflation and unemployment simultaneously) leads to the success of Friedman's monetarist theories. The party is over: the State should intervene less. Nevertheless
Friedman's theory, which requires a certain policy inaction, between door-to-step with the vocation of politics. Friedman is indirectly responsible for the establishment of independent central banks even if he personally opposed as not finding the Democratic measure. The state in turn is brought to continually expand its scope. And there was the closing of the divestment of its heritage.
II) The failure of Henry Kissinger
As shown by the famous epistemologist Karl Popper, a large bias runs the Western world: the belief in the character manifest the truth, which means that the truth stands before us and that is enough to remove barriers to seize it. To summarize: tails, this prejudice has our scientific development, opposite side: witch-hunting (in fact it is in modern times and not the Middle Ages that has burned more of the witches). This prejudice is reflected in political progressivism that encourages us to progress but has a deplorable tendency to blacken the past and blame.
Progressivism West manifests itself in two ways in the interpretation of international relations.
Outside the U.S.: the existence of evil, the lack of democracy and tyranny, we explain these phenomena, not by causes but by the endogenous action of a malicious entity. Now the U.S. is the most powerful country in the world. Since we do lend to the rich, the USA are regularly charged any disorder, coup and war (and even earthquakes). There are countless people who believe that having a critical means for keeping the U.S. guilty without evidence.
Inside the U.S.: progressivism embodied in the desire to expand the world economic system and politics is democracy, free markets, freedom of the press etc.. This translates into an idealistic foreign policy, that is to say, liberal in the vocabulary of international relations.
is this doctrine which leads to the interventions of the U.S. military abroad: involvement in the war of 14-18 is based on the ideal of the right of peoples to self-same, 39-45 is in the fight against Nazism, the commitments of the Cold War against communism.
optimistic view of this trend, there is the realist, intellectually brilliant but whose requirements are opposed to the underlying trends the country: there are Kennan (the author of the doctrine of containment, realistic in its prescription, idealistic in its execution), Morgenthau and Kissinger course.
When Kissinger became the adviser to President Richard Nixon, the country is already mired in the Vietnam War. It will continue the war as a withdrawal without a peace agreement would destroy the credibility of the United States from its allies during the Cold War. If
Kissinger will be able to conduct its policy realist, because American idealism is the ground: the sinking of the United States in the Vietnam War with its dead, its massacres, its scandals made doubt the United States. His people lose faith in the universality of its values. That time of My Lai , where it was discovered that the U.S. Army was an army like any other, no more heroic and sometimes disgusting. How can a just war could soon lead to the sadistic slaughter of a village?
This situation is untenable for the Left. The Democratic establishment in power dissolves suddenly disappears and Johnson does not even represent. Great depression. Public opinion began to turn. It is in these circumstances that Kissinger came to power under the wing of Nixon and then will conduct its policy. The festival is finite foreign countries do not want our armed imperialism of good intentions.
Kissinger meant to deal with non-democratic when it is in the interest of the country and the rapprochement with China as those who saw communist countries as a bloc could not imagine the ideology from the second plan, as well as the relative support for the South American dictatorships to prevent implantation of countries subject to Moscow - a fear that appears excessive in retrospect.
A realistic policy goal is not only the relative elevation of the country, it seeks the balance of power, not simply effect of these policies but a goal. It also aims to maintain an international order which is nothing to suggest that a different configuration would be better, besides the fact that his birth would not happen without convulsion.
Thus Kissinger noted that criticism of the Shah for its lack of democracy has resulted in the end a regime worse than to refer the responsibility of the Cambodian genocide to the anti-war, emphasized that a rigid application of principles is a source conflict.
But pushing the promotion of democratic ideals, Kissinger harbored suspicion against his country, suspected of acting for reasons reactionary or interested. He ate inside. It would indeed be a contradiction to see a fight there right / left. In reality this should be a straight shoot down idealism of the legacy of Kissinger: neoconservatism.
III) temporary disruptions
Friedman and Kissinger had won a battle, especially through their will and personality, but the trends they were fighting had deep roots: the intervention of the state and in Western idealism international relations phenomena are resilient. Both men had won a fight intellectual but trends remained. Their ideas would in turn be overturned. The vector of this reversal should not be debate. These were the passions that would lead the assault.
Kissinger had few allies, it was attacked by both the left and doves by the hawks of the right. They do not forgive him relax, which they interpreted as a retreat. In other words, Kissinger was faced with the idealism of the left and right! By attacking Kissinger, left, was felt to attack the right. In reality it provided ammunition for critics of Kissinger worst, the neoconservatives, whose doctrine command to export by force of arms if need democracy.
Kissinger is not forbidden, it was quickly taken for granted that what he was accused were true. Regardless of lack of evidence. In particular it appears to many people acquired the coup against Allende in 1973 bears the imprint of Kissinger. In fact his involvement has never been demonstrated that despite the vast amount of open archives. (This obsession to involve in my opinion reveals Kissinger's refusal to admit that this move has causes endogenous)
After a few years the neoconservatives took power and legacy of Kissinger was rejected. Idealism was back. Certainly one does not understand foreign policy of the United States if we do not want to see it is guided by idealism and not, as the fans believe the conspiracy theory, by material interests more or less secret. From Woodrow Wilson to George W Bush through Kennedy, the United States are the heralds of progressivism, liberalism and democracy. The United States has a military force that they want to use to improve the world and promote their values. It is promoting them they are looking and not material gain when they engage in Europe in 1917, in 1941, creating the United Nations, in adopting the doctrine of containment that requires them to intervene anywhere for that to fight evil absolute communism, trying the Iraq adventure to liquidate a socialist dictatorship and hope to reform the greater Middle East does not understand the mistrust and resistance they provoke. How many times does he repeat it?
As Friedman, it was decided that it was a big fan of South American dictatorships and the architect of privatization conducted through state terrorism see the thesis of the essay writer Naomi Klein. More generally it has been held for the financial architect of the configuration currently in crisis. To fell
Kissinger has been called cynical doctrine. To fell Friedman, said of his doctrine that it was undemocratic and vicious. Each time it was explained that these doctrines revealed the truth of the United States, accounted for his system, while not specifically they had neutralized the underlying trends of this country. Ruse of history, the overthrow of these doctrines are presented as a work of subversion when it was actually a reaction that allowed Return to the natural tendencies of the United States: idealism and interventionism.
loss of influence of the doctrines of the two men were found today: abysmal deficits and increasing state control over society on the one hand, wars in Iraq and Afghanistan to install democracy on the other.
0 comments:
Post a Comment