Briefly, On Henry Kissinger

Andrew Donaldson

Born and raised in West Virginia, Andrew has been the Managing Editor of Ordinary Times since 2018, is a widely published opinion writer, and appears in media, radio, and occasionally as a talking head on TV. He can usually be found misspelling/misusing words on Twitter@four4thefire. Andrew is the host of Heard Tell podcast. Subscribe to Andrew'sHeard Tell Substack for free here:

Related Post Roulette

4 Responses

  1. Jaybird
    Ignored
    says:

    There was the usual cacophony of people celebrating Kissinger’s death on the twitters… a meme that had grown popular over the last two years showed death playing a claw game and saying stuff like “Diane Feinstein? Is Henry Kissinger even in this thing?” and, of course, there were a dozen edits of the meme yelling variants of “He *IS* in here!” and even more memes celebrating in “ding dong” style (including a bunch of 20-somethings whose knowledge of Kissinger is that Anthony Bourdain talked about him once… I suppose that it’s the same as GenXers having strong opinions on Watergate in the 80s based on little more than MAD Magazines picked up at flea markets).

    Back when the debate over International Relations was Liberalism vs. Realism, it made sense, I guess, for the liberals to paint the realists as the devil themselves and Kissinger was the false prophet of Realism… but now it seems like such a quaint debate even as Ukraine and Russia continue their disputes, Israel and Palestine continue their disputes, and now we’ve got Venezuela looking at Guyana with hungry eyes.

    There are worse things than Realism.

    We’re not going to like what happens after the so-called Pax Americana ends.Report

    • InMD in reply to Jaybird
      Ignored
      says:

      One of the weirder things about aging I think is watching various ideas and arguments age along with you, sometimes into strange and totally unintended directions.

      I can never tell what the perspective twenty somethings will have on events they did not themselves experience, but with respect to this particular issue, I wonder how much George W. Bush’s adventures and the failure to sufficiently repudiate them by Obama weigh on it. We seem to have evolved from a prescient perspective of ‘the United States should not do self evidently stupid things in the world’ like try to turn Middle Eastern dictatorships into democracies with military force, to ‘no exercise of power by the US is defensible under any circumstances and but for the US the world would be a happy peaceful place.’

      All is to say I think you’re right on the Pax Americana thing. The real shame might be that we have done so many stupid things to swiften its end. It’s entirely possible that what comes next will be much more dangerous and chaotic, and result in a poorer world, and not just for us.Report

      • Chip Daniels in reply to InMD
        Ignored
        says:

        “We seem to have evolved from a prescient perspective…”

        Who is this “We”?Report

      • DavidTC in reply to InMD
        Ignored
        says:

        We seem to have evolved from a prescient perspective of ‘the United States should not do self evidently stupid things in the world’ like try to turn Middle Eastern dictatorships into democracies with military force, to ‘no exercise of power by the US is defensible under any circumstances and but for the US the world would be a happy peaceful place.’

        Who exactly is arguing the US shouldn’t use their power?

        Soft power is power. Right now the left is screaming their head off for Biden to use soft power to reign in Israel. Other people are saying ‘We should continue supporting Israel’. There is no political party that says ‘Yes, we could do something there, but shouldn’t’, they merely differ on what should be done and how. Even people who call themselves isolationists tend to mean ‘We should not fight wars or do any sort of excessive interference’, most of them would be fine with ‘The US should use soft power to occasionally help the world’.

        And as for ‘but for the US the world would be a happy peaceful place’, I think that’s a somewhat naive position that is true only if dozens of other countries also vanish. Like, we have been absolutely destructive in South America, but the problem is, if it wasn’t us, it would have been Russia and Europe. You can argue plenty of places would be better off with _no_ world powers, but that is not a world that vaguely resembles ours, and hell, I could make a mostly coherent claim that we merely inherited Britain’s power, and without us they’d still have it, and they, objectively, produced even stupider outcomes than we did. (See also: Literally the entire Middle East.)Report

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *