BHL seems to suffer from some severe contradictions in his thinking.
He states, “The natural inclination of humans and their societies is egotism: Every man for himself. That certainly was true for most of the 19th and 20th centuries. But there are exceptional moments. They’re rare, but they come along. And the last 30 years of the 20th century were the longest and most intense of these exceptional moments.” What?? The people of the early and mid 20th century fought not one but two world wars to defeat tyranny, not to mention several others along the way. Where was the “egotism” in that, the “every man for himself” attitude? Nonsense.
He advocates for open borders, and doesn’t appear to understand why citizens are not for that. Is he suffering from cognitive dissonance. Because with open borders today comes Islam and it’s spread. Is he for that?
Also he defends Derrida and Foucoult, as if their ideas have had nothing to do with the post modernist rot we see in society today. You may say everyone missed the point of these two, as if you alone understand what they were trying to advocate, but you cannot deny their ideas have been handily turned into ideologies for the Left. The same Left that is now deriding Jews and touting moral relativism. And for that Derrida and Foucoult are indeed culpable.
I’m not impressed with BHL’s philosophy, it’s well intentioned no doubt. But too often that comes with disastrous unintended consequences.
Levy has been consistent in his beliefs for decades; he has intrigued and annoyed me for as long. This interview shows him at his most erudite and truthful about the world he sees from the vantage point of his 40 years in service to the process of thinking and doing. “Liberal interventionist” who even knows that those two words could describe one person. Bottom line, he like very few others, understands the utter necessity of America. American goodness, American might and American selflessness..that he has witnessed over the years. Someone like him would not be able to exist in this nation, so along with cheese, baguettes and fine wine, I’ll add Mr Levy.
BHL is hopelessly anachronistic and dangerously naive:
BW: Jacques Derrida was one of your professors at the École Normale Supérieure. Many identify French intellectuals like him and Michel Foucault as key players in the rise of moral and cultural relativism. Do you feel that their influence, among others, has led to the elevation of relativistic thinking or “wokeness” in the West?
BHL: Yes. But as the result of a misunderstanding. And because of a totally idiotic reading of their books.
It seems BHL does not understand -- or does not want to understand -- that French intellectuals are often "misunderstood" by "idiotic readings" of their work. That is the point. These philosophies provide cover for the most base urges within humanity, conquer and control.
Nope, BHL is a misty-eyed ideologue who will continue to allow theory to replace reality until OWE is established. I'd rather have Aayan Hirsi-Ali any day.
The Ukraine situation is far more nuanced than Mr. Lévy seems to believe. Russia is suffering a demographic collapse; its Slavic population is dying out. The leadership is desperate to bolster the ethnic Russian numbers, before the country is subsumed by the central Asian Muslim population that is still growing healthily.
Given that there are several million Russian speakers in eastern Ukraine who desire to rejoin with the mother country, and given Ukraine's weak, corrupt, dysfunctional government, it is only a matter of time before that region is taken over.
Similarly with Crimea; with a couple million ethnic Russians and a large Russian naval base, Putin saw it as a logical move to reincorporate it into the Federation. Among other things, there was an inflow of Asian Muslims to Crimea which he wanted to stem.
Rather than take a "principled" stance about international law and democracy, why don't we at least try to understand the Russian perspective? Then we can also take a close look at a map; Ukraine literally borders Russia. How would we feel if the Russians (and Chinese) were arming separatists along the US-Mexico border? Different situation, maybe, but same principle of trespassing into someone else's backyard.
Ukraine is a failed state; its economy is in a shambles, and its population is declining faster than almost any other in the world, as young people flee for better economic opportunities and those that remain, are choosing not to bear children. Ukraine's biggest export these days is its mail-order brides. Perhaps it would have been better off joining the Federation, where at least it would have access to a commonwealth of economic markets and cheaper energy. None of this justifies a Russian military intervention, but it does suggest that the Ukrainians should set aside their centuries-old hate for Moscow and try to negotiate some kind of autonomy for the ethnic Russian region, perhaps in exchange for renewed access to cheap oil and gas.
Also worrisome is that apparently the Biden Administration and its liberal-neocon cheerleaders see this as an opportunity to "look tough" after the disastrous and cowardly cut-and-run from Afghanistan. One wonders whether any Americans outside of D.C. are actually fooled by this charade.
Bari, you characterize the American war in Iraq as a "mistake" and Afghanistan "misguided". I respect you, but both of those words are sickening understatements. Those 2 wars were catastrophes for the people of the Middle East and Afghanistan and for the American military.
How and why do you think a war in the Ukraine will rectify a Russian incursion and takeover? Do you think American presence will make things better or worse? What's the track record?
GGreenwald has written a good counterweight to this column:
"The Neocons' Primary War Tactic: Branding Opponents of U.S. Intervention as Traitors
By rehabilitating neocons and elevating them as thought leaders, liberals live in their framework. Thus are opponents of U.S. involvement in Ukraine deemed treasonous."
Going to war with Russia over anything in their sphere of influence is insane. The Russians are not a threat to Europe. The neocons, which apparently now includes all the "anti-war" liberals, are fuming with war fever again. Every excuse, every exaggeration, every lie is used to fool the midwits into rooting for someone else's kids to bleed out in foreign mud somewhere and show the "bad guys" who's boss. Read some goddamn history and see what happens every. stinking. time. Get a good book on Vietnam or the Korean War.
I had the honor of seeing Messr. Lévy at Google (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yky5L1QmcoE) and asking him a question, at 39:58. The question was something I had intended to ask every guest at Google, but regrettably I only asked him, Strobe Talbott, and Michael Kinsley, and then I stopped for some reason.
The question was "it's often said that the US won the Cold War. Do you agree or disagree?
His answer was the best & most thoughtful of the three. Kinsley instantly assumed it was a pro-Reagan question and attacked that.
Hopefully, Bari, you can see that 9 out of 10 commenters don't like or agree with this guy. We cherish the debate but maybe present a different expert in response as a counter-point? Daniel McAdams would be my suggestion.
As an individual it is noble and thoughtful to care about and for others. Nations are organized (and should be) to care about their people. America has plenty of problems and issues that require addressing. If you move to another country(legally) you are obligated to embrace that country, culture, history, and language. Otherwise stay where you are. Enough wars. Stop.
Bari, I would recommend you to get information about Russia-Ukraine conflict not from CNN, Fox and other mainstream media. According to the US mainstream media , Israel is the occupant, oppressor and the main demon in the region. Do you think this is true? If not, why do you think that Russia is the main evil in Europe? I assume because Russia is not a true democratic country? OK, why do you think Ukraine has a real western-type democracy? Have you been there? Did you investigate what is going on in Ukraine? Just common sense questions.
"Last" liberal interventionist? Come again? Can we even count on two hands the number of national politicians on the left that DON'T support interventionism? To say nothing of the other political orientations.
For 4 years we heard constant hate of Trump from all regime and MSM mouthpieces; except, for the one day he bombed Syria. They said he was being "presidential".
Let's all recall that the Neoconservatives were former Trotskyite leftists who developed a boner for a quixotic interpretation of Strauss and some idea of pseudo-national greatness through war. This gentlemen Levy may believe he is the last of something, but I think he is delusional. I don't believe I identified one single opinion that he expressed that is different from the Washington consensus (especially on Russia and the Ukraine).
Yes, there is a small counter-trend among the vox populi, not the intelligentsia, towards principled non-interventionism thanks to heroes like Ron Paul. Which, of course, our smug know-it-all does not even address except to prop up the straw man of "isolationism" and "not caring about the world." Sorry, but vox populi are moving past this third grade rhetoric.
The left as always been illiberal, even divisive, due to their following and identifying with perhaps the most divisive man in history, Karl Marx. Divide and conquer has long been a useful military tactic, if any form of useful can be associated with warfare. But to employ it as a tactic in constructing a world view is patently insane.
Speaking of insanities, the old saying, people who live in glass houses ought not to throw rocks, should be considered by those who find offense where there is none. Is it not constructing a delicate house of glass in making one's self breakable by even imaginary stones? Chicken is rightly scorned even by little children when they first hear the tale of his insanity.
Mirrors were not originally invented for vanity, but to reveal ones own shortcomings with the object of counteracting them. It is noteworthy to remind one's self that in a mirror, the image examined is a reverse image.
BHL seems to suffer from some severe contradictions in his thinking.
He states, “The natural inclination of humans and their societies is egotism: Every man for himself. That certainly was true for most of the 19th and 20th centuries. But there are exceptional moments. They’re rare, but they come along. And the last 30 years of the 20th century were the longest and most intense of these exceptional moments.” What?? The people of the early and mid 20th century fought not one but two world wars to defeat tyranny, not to mention several others along the way. Where was the “egotism” in that, the “every man for himself” attitude? Nonsense.
He advocates for open borders, and doesn’t appear to understand why citizens are not for that. Is he suffering from cognitive dissonance. Because with open borders today comes Islam and it’s spread. Is he for that?
Also he defends Derrida and Foucoult, as if their ideas have had nothing to do with the post modernist rot we see in society today. You may say everyone missed the point of these two, as if you alone understand what they were trying to advocate, but you cannot deny their ideas have been handily turned into ideologies for the Left. The same Left that is now deriding Jews and touting moral relativism. And for that Derrida and Foucoult are indeed culpable.
I’m not impressed with BHL’s philosophy, it’s well intentioned no doubt. But too often that comes with disastrous unintended consequences.
Levy has been consistent in his beliefs for decades; he has intrigued and annoyed me for as long. This interview shows him at his most erudite and truthful about the world he sees from the vantage point of his 40 years in service to the process of thinking and doing. “Liberal interventionist” who even knows that those two words could describe one person. Bottom line, he like very few others, understands the utter necessity of America. American goodness, American might and American selflessness..that he has witnessed over the years. Someone like him would not be able to exist in this nation, so along with cheese, baguettes and fine wine, I’ll add Mr Levy.
BHL is hopelessly anachronistic and dangerously naive:
BW: Jacques Derrida was one of your professors at the École Normale Supérieure. Many identify French intellectuals like him and Michel Foucault as key players in the rise of moral and cultural relativism. Do you feel that their influence, among others, has led to the elevation of relativistic thinking or “wokeness” in the West?
BHL: Yes. But as the result of a misunderstanding. And because of a totally idiotic reading of their books.
It seems BHL does not understand -- or does not want to understand -- that French intellectuals are often "misunderstood" by "idiotic readings" of their work. That is the point. These philosophies provide cover for the most base urges within humanity, conquer and control.
Nope, BHL is a misty-eyed ideologue who will continue to allow theory to replace reality until OWE is established. I'd rather have Aayan Hirsi-Ali any day.
For a more realistic, less outdated analysis, folks might want to read Daniel McAdams' article here: https://original.antiwar.com/daniel-mcadams/2022/01/25/bidens-ukrainian-albatross/
You can also read interesting analyses of the Ukraine mess at MoonofAlabama.com, not many conformists or propagandists there.
The Ukraine situation is far more nuanced than Mr. Lévy seems to believe. Russia is suffering a demographic collapse; its Slavic population is dying out. The leadership is desperate to bolster the ethnic Russian numbers, before the country is subsumed by the central Asian Muslim population that is still growing healthily.
Given that there are several million Russian speakers in eastern Ukraine who desire to rejoin with the mother country, and given Ukraine's weak, corrupt, dysfunctional government, it is only a matter of time before that region is taken over.
Similarly with Crimea; with a couple million ethnic Russians and a large Russian naval base, Putin saw it as a logical move to reincorporate it into the Federation. Among other things, there was an inflow of Asian Muslims to Crimea which he wanted to stem.
Rather than take a "principled" stance about international law and democracy, why don't we at least try to understand the Russian perspective? Then we can also take a close look at a map; Ukraine literally borders Russia. How would we feel if the Russians (and Chinese) were arming separatists along the US-Mexico border? Different situation, maybe, but same principle of trespassing into someone else's backyard.
Ukraine is a failed state; its economy is in a shambles, and its population is declining faster than almost any other in the world, as young people flee for better economic opportunities and those that remain, are choosing not to bear children. Ukraine's biggest export these days is its mail-order brides. Perhaps it would have been better off joining the Federation, where at least it would have access to a commonwealth of economic markets and cheaper energy. None of this justifies a Russian military intervention, but it does suggest that the Ukrainians should set aside their centuries-old hate for Moscow and try to negotiate some kind of autonomy for the ethnic Russian region, perhaps in exchange for renewed access to cheap oil and gas.
Also worrisome is that apparently the Biden Administration and its liberal-neocon cheerleaders see this as an opportunity to "look tough" after the disastrous and cowardly cut-and-run from Afghanistan. One wonders whether any Americans outside of D.C. are actually fooled by this charade.
Bari, you characterize the American war in Iraq as a "mistake" and Afghanistan "misguided". I respect you, but both of those words are sickening understatements. Those 2 wars were catastrophes for the people of the Middle East and Afghanistan and for the American military.
How and why do you think a war in the Ukraine will rectify a Russian incursion and takeover? Do you think American presence will make things better or worse? What's the track record?
GGreenwald has written a good counterweight to this column:
"The Neocons' Primary War Tactic: Branding Opponents of U.S. Intervention as Traitors
By rehabilitating neocons and elevating them as thought leaders, liberals live in their framework. Thus are opponents of U.S. involvement in Ukraine deemed treasonous."
https://greenwald.substack.com/p/the-neocons-primary-war-tactic-branding
Going to war with Russia over anything in their sphere of influence is insane. The Russians are not a threat to Europe. The neocons, which apparently now includes all the "anti-war" liberals, are fuming with war fever again. Every excuse, every exaggeration, every lie is used to fool the midwits into rooting for someone else's kids to bleed out in foreign mud somewhere and show the "bad guys" who's boss. Read some goddamn history and see what happens every. stinking. time. Get a good book on Vietnam or the Korean War.
I had the honor of seeing Messr. Lévy at Google (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yky5L1QmcoE) and asking him a question, at 39:58. The question was something I had intended to ask every guest at Google, but regrettably I only asked him, Strobe Talbott, and Michael Kinsley, and then I stopped for some reason.
The question was "it's often said that the US won the Cold War. Do you agree or disagree?
His answer was the best & most thoughtful of the three. Kinsley instantly assumed it was a pro-Reagan question and attacked that.
The wisdom was all in the final paragraph
Isn't twenty years enough?
Biden's approval is in the toilet, he needs a distraction. Oh, look over there! Putin's threatening Ukraine!
Excellent read. The last paragraph should be widely and wildly publicized.
Hopefully, Bari, you can see that 9 out of 10 commenters don't like or agree with this guy. We cherish the debate but maybe present a different expert in response as a counter-point? Daniel McAdams would be my suggestion.
As an individual it is noble and thoughtful to care about and for others. Nations are organized (and should be) to care about their people. America has plenty of problems and issues that require addressing. If you move to another country(legally) you are obligated to embrace that country, culture, history, and language. Otherwise stay where you are. Enough wars. Stop.
Bari, I would recommend you to get information about Russia-Ukraine conflict not from CNN, Fox and other mainstream media. According to the US mainstream media , Israel is the occupant, oppressor and the main demon in the region. Do you think this is true? If not, why do you think that Russia is the main evil in Europe? I assume because Russia is not a true democratic country? OK, why do you think Ukraine has a real western-type democracy? Have you been there? Did you investigate what is going on in Ukraine? Just common sense questions.
Found this lecture of Dr. John Mearsheimer. The second opinion on the current situation from 2015. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JrMiSQAGOS4&t=3448s
"Last" liberal interventionist? Come again? Can we even count on two hands the number of national politicians on the left that DON'T support interventionism? To say nothing of the other political orientations.
For 4 years we heard constant hate of Trump from all regime and MSM mouthpieces; except, for the one day he bombed Syria. They said he was being "presidential".
Let's all recall that the Neoconservatives were former Trotskyite leftists who developed a boner for a quixotic interpretation of Strauss and some idea of pseudo-national greatness through war. This gentlemen Levy may believe he is the last of something, but I think he is delusional. I don't believe I identified one single opinion that he expressed that is different from the Washington consensus (especially on Russia and the Ukraine).
Yes, there is a small counter-trend among the vox populi, not the intelligentsia, towards principled non-interventionism thanks to heroes like Ron Paul. Which, of course, our smug know-it-all does not even address except to prop up the straw man of "isolationism" and "not caring about the world." Sorry, but vox populi are moving past this third grade rhetoric.
The left as always been illiberal, even divisive, due to their following and identifying with perhaps the most divisive man in history, Karl Marx. Divide and conquer has long been a useful military tactic, if any form of useful can be associated with warfare. But to employ it as a tactic in constructing a world view is patently insane.
Speaking of insanities, the old saying, people who live in glass houses ought not to throw rocks, should be considered by those who find offense where there is none. Is it not constructing a delicate house of glass in making one's self breakable by even imaginary stones? Chicken is rightly scorned even by little children when they first hear the tale of his insanity.
Mirrors were not originally invented for vanity, but to reveal ones own shortcomings with the object of counteracting them. It is noteworthy to remind one's self that in a mirror, the image examined is a reverse image.