pragmatic liberal interventionism

Excellent article by Blake at TAP Online.

Recently here on TAP Online, Shadi Hamid and Spencer Ackerman debated what should serve as the lodestar of a progressive foreign policy vision. Hamid argued that the United States should make the promotion of democracy the centerpiece of its foreign policy, while Ackerman advocated that human rights take that role. Such questions will very likely become more relevant after Tuesday, if Democrats gain more power in Congress. But neither Hamid nor Ackerman offered the correct answer. As the small example of Vietnam helps to illustrate, the United States ought to be redirecting its energies toward renewing its strength and expanding the postwar liberal world order. Do that, and the rest -- democracy, human rights, liberal reforms -- will eventually follow.

I think however that he relies too much on the example of Acheson - as I note in a comment over at AF, there are a lot of other prominent people - including Gore, Fukuyama, Hart, and even Zakaria. If pragmatic liberal interventionism, or neo-wilsoniamism, or whatever we are to call it, is to really gain acceptance we need our own "neocon cabal" to validate it.