Missing Dean Acheson

NY Times ^ | August 1, 2008 | DAVID BROOKS

[neverdem]

We’re about to enter our 19th consecutive year of Truman-envy. Ever since the Berlin Wall fell, people have looked at the way Harry Truman, George C. Marshall, Dean Acheson and others created forward-looking global institutions after World War II, and they’ve asked: Why can’t we rally that kind of international cooperation to confront terrorism, global warming, nuclear proliferation and the rest of today’s problems?

The answer is that, in the late 1940s, global power was concentrated. The victory over fascism meant the mantle of global leadership rested firmly on the Atlantic alliance. The United States accounted for roughly half of world economic output. Within the U.S., power was wielded by a small, bipartisan, permanent governing class — men like Acheson, W. Averell Harriman, John McCloy and Robert Lovett.

Today power is dispersed. There is no permanent bipartisan governing class in Washington. Globally, power has gone multipolar, with the rise of China, India, Brazil and the rest.

This dispersion should, in theory, be a good thing, but in practice, multipolarity means that more groups have effective veto power over collective action...

--snip--

A few years ago, the U.S. tried to break through this global passivity. It tried to enforce U.N. resolutions and put the mantle of authority on its own shoulders. The results of that enterprise, the Iraq war, suggest that this approach will not be tried again anytime soon.

And so the globosclerosis continues, and people around the world lose faith in their leaders. It’s worth remembering that George W. Bush is actually more popular than many of his peers. His approval ratings hover around 29 percent. Gordon Brown’s are about 17 percent. Japan’s Yasuo Fukuda’s are about 26 percent. Nicolas Sarkozy, Angela Merkel and Silvio Berlusconi have ratings that are a bit higher, but still pathetically low.

[neverdem]

Brooks has to screw up an otherwise decent column by paying homage to the global warming boogyman.

[JasonC]

Acheson was a worthless incompetent leftist who flacked for commie spies, and nearly caused the Korean war single handed. If that is the traitor left's idea of bipartisan wisdom, I'll pass, thank you very much.

The left hasn't even begun to think about the costs of their epic traitorous recklessness over the last five years. It is just this - no sane patriot will ever trust anything they think say or do in foreign or security policy.

Ever. Again.

[Darkwolf377]

Missing Dean Acheson

I didn't know you quoted articles from Pravda, neverdem.

[Soliton]

If Obambi gets in we will have Anthony Lake. He makes Acheson (Topeka and the Santa Fe) look like Mussolini

[Happy Rain]

This is an ignorant,if not juvinile assesment.
With the Cold War won by RR,there are two new superpowers left on earth—only this time within the same nation—the Democrats and the Republicans of the US.
The foreign services of every country base their policies on what our two parties either do or try to do.No other country matters.
The world may have the ability to bring us hardship,but we have the capability to bring it ruin—and THEY know it.Our military might against anyone else’s is like the forces of Great Britain against those of Zanzibar in 1896—a war that lasted 45 minutes.Only the Democrats can gut this insurance against foreign tyrany and the world hopes they can.
That’s why they like Obama.

[neverdem]

I didn't know you quoted articles from Pravda, neverdem.

I'm not quoting. I posted it. Regardless, David Brooks makes more sense than the rest of their OpEd columnists. And the thrust of his essay is valid. The United Nations is almost useless in a multipolar world.

OpEd contributors can represent any viewpoint at the NY Times.

[Darkwolf377]

Uh, I was kidding.

[nathanbedford]

Who needs a black liberation international Marxist like Barak Obama when we can provide the button down version of the same thing out of our own ranks, courtesy of the New York Times?

David Brooks purports to be a conservative, and maybe he is, but he obviously doesn't have a clue about what he is leading the world in for should he get his way. His whole scenario is a wet dream for the likes of Barak Obama. If Brooks has any understanding that the right is embattled and on the defensive at home, wait until we are ruled by a clique of unelected, foreign, elite, internationalists who are not even remotely worried about being recalled by the electorate.

[iopscusa]

Brooks is like a lot of the MSM Conservatives...everything he writes has a bipolar flavor...in this article he starts out appeasing the Left with praise of the post WWII Democrats that loss China, Eastern Europe, Balkins, gave us a fascist wartime economy + the UN and Korea and then he goes in the other direction by meekly suggesting a League of Democracies without really saying much about the failures of thee Left, UN and Commie infested Security Council.

[nkycincinnatikid]

I actually feel you go waay to easy on Acheson. During his time the fog at Foggy Bottom was toxic.

[infowarrior]

I actually feel you go waay to easy on Acheson. During his time the fog at Foggy Bottom was toxic...

Seems to me like you're suggesting it's improved since Acheson's day, which is something I haven't seen...

the infowarrior

[syriacus]

Acheson was a worthless incompetent leftist who flacked for commie spies, and nearly caused the Korean war single handed.

Yes. If the US hadn't abandoned S. Korea militarily and diplomatically, there might not have been a Korean War.

30,000 Americans died in 30 months in Korea, under Truman, after Truman sent them there to win back S. Korea's freedom. And Truman said he was sending them there to fight a "police action" against bandits.