the boisi center interviews no. 31: February 18, 2009

jean bethke elshtain is the Laura Spelman Rockefeller Professor of Social and Polit- ical Ethics at the University of Chicago, and the Thomas and Dorothy Leavey Chair in the Foundations of American Freedom at Georgetown University. She spoke with Boisi Center associate director Erik Owens before participating in a panel discussion on realism, ethics, and U.S. foreign policy.

owens: There is a wide assumption driving this, or are they kind of layered can never be fully achieved in the affairs that realism and foreign policy in interna- on when you’d already decided to do of this earth. There can never be a perfect tional relations is aggressively amoral or something anyway for strategic reasons? link between the moral norm and the at least attempts to be so. Could you say So those are all assessments that one has policy and the outcome. So if you try to a word about how accurate that descrip- to make, but you can’t make them unless bring moral norms to complete fruition tion is and in what sense you consider you acknowledge that you can’t just sever in international relations, you’re going yourself a realist? ethical considerations from international to wind up with a moralistic endeavor relations. and something that may invite overreach elshtain: Well, your description of the and triumphalism and some other deep attempt is very accurate. Certainly the problems. The Christian realist position way I was taught international relations consists of different forms of realism, in graduate school was precisely that a but it doesn’t dispense altogether with nation’s foreign policy could not be as- political realism. sessed according to ethical criteria of the sort we usually think of when we think owens: You’ve argued in many differ- of ethics. Rather that there was an inner ent places against utopianism of multiple sort of ethos in the conduct of interna- types in foreign policy. Could you say a tional relations that was driven solely by bit about the dangers of utopianism and power considerations and the articula- where we see it in actual foreign policy tion of something like national interest. practice? Once you start to probe deeply into these elshtain: Well, I think we see it in issues, you discover that it’s really not so a couple of different modes. One very easy to separate out normative concerns common one, nowadays, is simply the of a certain kind, ethical and moral val- arguments being made by people—some ues, from the conduct of foreign policy. in international relations, some in peace If you look at the United States, you can study, some in law—that we can some- see that very clearly—whether it’s the how wind up with a world where we have As to what kind of realist I might be, World War I era or the World War II era, reduced conflict to the vanishing point. there’s a tradition called Christian real- even Vietnam and certainly Iraq. You We can somehow overcome this hangup ism, associated in the United States, with have the articulation of certain moral with the nation state and rise to some Reinhold Niebuhr, the public theologian. norms, very high ideals that are consid- universal or collective level of deci- It holds that you cannot make that split. ered to be or are claimed to be in play. So sion-making. These are really, in a way, At the same time, one of the lessons of one has to assess the activity, the policies, fantasies concocted by people out of their political realism is that there are limits to in light of some of those moral norms. own heads that have very little connec- power as well. That is, a high moral norm How much are the moral norms really tion to political reality at all. The problem

1 the boisi center interview: jean bethke elshtain with these kinds of utopianisms, is that utopian impulse? Furthermore, how does difficult circumstances to get a more it makes the humanly possible work look it relate to this model? responsible, accountable, transparent like nothing at all. The hard work that democratic society. So that makes that elshtain: That’s an interesting ques- diplomats do and the hard work that situation rather different from the end of tion, and it’s a bit of a tough one. Inside various international organizations do to World War I, where you didn’t have these all of the countries in the Middle East, try to ameliorate conditions, to try to stop human rights forces and democracy forc- there are people pushing democracy and the worst stuff from happening, that all es unleashed on the world as we do now. pushing human rights, often very brave looks really second rate when measured people who pay a pretty heavy price for Certainly, as an aspiration, democratic up against this utopian grandeur. doing that. The question is how do we states in the Middle East would be a great To the extent that these people have an respond to those who see themselves as thing if it could happen, by contrast to influence on decision-making, which is democratizing forces in each of these autocratic orders, which human rights the other conduit for utopianism, I think countries and societies? It’s right and it’s being violated systematically. That has it invites what I warned against already, to come, if it will come, over time and in which is this grandiosity and a kind of ways that we cannot foresee now but that moralism. “I embody the moral approach are also consistent with the culture. It has and therefore I can’t be wrong. This is “The problem with to be derived from that culture too. So the moral approach and everybody who that makes it very, very complicated. How criticizes me is somehow immoral or utopianism is much do you stand back and watch? How amoral.” So I think you get those kinds of that it makes the much do you intervene? That’s a delicate dangers in a utopian approach, whether business, to say the least. it’s on a level of argument or on the level humanly possible owens: With regard to your comments of policy. work look like about international organizations and On the level of policy, you’re never going the utopians who think that they can to get someone to say this is utopian. nothing at all. flatten out conflict through the use of However, when you look back and assess international organizations, your most it you can see it. We could take for ex- The hard work recent book is a massive study on the ample Woodrow Wilson’s plan after the that diplomats concept of sovereignty – theological, conclusion of World War I. He thought political and psychological. Could you say you could divide up the old Austro-Hun- do to stop the a bit about whether you think the nation garian Empire into perfect little states state is an inevitable or a natural political with national self-determination, where worst stuff from arrangement? If not, what would be an you had a congruence of the border of a appropriate relationship between person state with a type of linguistic community. happening looks and state, because this relates back to Theoretically that was supposed to ease really second several of the issues you’ve talked about the tensions and the conflicts in Europe. with regards to states in the international Of course, it had quite the opposite effect rate.” community? because you have these small, relatively elshtain: Certainly there’s very little vulnerable states where you always have that’s inevitable, as you know, in the minorities who don’t fit in the ideal of the good thing to do to support them to world of human affairs. The nation state what counts as the nation. You just set the extent that we can. as we know it grew out of a particular the stage for many of the conflicts that configuration of historic forces in Europe, led up to World War II. When people That seems to me rather different from but it has been universalized. It is now want to issue a cautionary note, they al- the notion that there is one model of the universal form that organized politics ways go back to that and say, this is what democracy that can be superimposed on takes, so that the United Nations consists happens when you get a strong moral a culture that has no experience of that of sovereign states, and you must have a vision, and you’re not taking account of kind of society. There is a careful line to recognized sovereignty to be a member. the actual conditions on the ground. walk between a kind of superimposition So you’ve got this tension at the heart of of a certain understanding of democra- owens: Would you argue that the im- the U.N., because to be a sovereign state cy by contrast to working with human pulse to democratize the Middle East is a means you are the judge of your own rights groups, democratizing groups, on case. You can make the determination the ground, who are struggling under

2 the boisi center interview: jean bethke elshtain whether to go to war or not. You do not need U.N. approval. You might want it, but you don’t require it. And so you set the basis for the policy of your own country. Many have obviously lamented that and have said that the state form may have emerged, but again it’s not inevitable. It could be something that historically has a certain lifespan, and that lifespan has now run its course, and we need to move to some other type of organization. Nobody has figured out what that might look like. I have to say it’s difficult for me to con- jure what that might look like too because even something like regional agreements really mean something. As a citizen of because civil society historically has been between a number of states still require Illinois, you really have some say in the a concept having to do with all the many states to come to agreement. The more affairs of Illinois. Our states are, for the associations that dot the landscape of you remove from the citizen the source of most part, pretty weak in relation to the democratic cultures and do a lot of the power under which the citizen labors, the national government, and I don’t see hard work of democracy. It used to be more difficult it is for ordinary citizens to that course changing any time soon. But called volunteer activity, those who put have any say in what’s going on. As diffi- theoretically, it’s certainly possible. their shoulders to the wheel, do all kinds cult as it is on the level of the nation state of things. I think of this every time I go for people to make their voices heard, So it strikes me that the extremes of to vote, because you have all those volun- imagine if you had some vague sort of a certain kind of localism, multiple teers who are handling the election, who worldwide entity doing something. How localisms or overarching universalism are election poll officers. If you think of on earth could you connect to that or re- are what we want to avoid. Then what’s it nationwide, it’s an enormous number late to that? It just seems to me complete- that in- between? How do you work that of people putting in these long hours. ly implausible, and it’s hard to imagine, in-between so people have some sense It’s quite remarkable. I think there’s a lot what form this might take. that they’re part of something? That they that’s remarkable about this country, and have some say? That their voice matters? owens: Is the proper movement then one of them is that people are still pre- The nation state is the best thing we’ve downward in scale as opposed to upward pared to do that. The idea of a global civil come up with thus far to try to make that in scale? Searching back for a Rousseaui- society, as it’s been advanced by a num- possible, if not guarantee it. an ideal size of a republic? ber of folks, is that you could connect owens: Much of your work over the people to one another outside the rubric elshtain: I think that you could have years has been committed to the concept of the state. If the state doesn’t dominate some downward in scale stuff, certainly. of civil society and in particular on small- this activity, the state is not the controller It’s sometimes called devolution, where a er scales, but to some degree thinking of this activity, and you could connect good bit of what happens that’s of impor- about larger forms of civil society. Could people who have a shared concern across tance in a community or in multiple com- you say a bit about the concept of global boundaries. International human rights munities is stuff over which they have civil society as it relates to state boundar- groups would be an example or Doctors some decent measure of say or of control. ies? It seems to be a principled basis for Without Borders. I think it’s a good Once again, we’re talking about the state challenging sovereignty. Also whether or idea, because you get more connections delegating power to other entities, and not this global civil society/cosmopolitan between people across states and across that seems possible to me. ideal is utopian-trending, or whether it’s those boundaries, and certainly the new In the United States, it would take the more appropriately grounded in a non- technologies make it more possible for form of a rejuvenation of federalism, so state manner? people to connect to one another than that being in a state, whether it’s Massa- ever before. elshtain: It’s interesting that people chusetts or Illinois or any other, would are talking about global civil society now

3 the boisi center interview: jean bethke elshtain How solid these connections will be or owens: President Obama has called for history, it means that these are where you will remain in a time of crisis is hard to a joining of principle and pragmatism start out with a very fine goal, but cast tell. But it’s an important development. in his inaugural address with regard to it in language that’s too grandiose and I’m not sure if it will have the effect of foreign policy, which seems to be a time- too inflexible, and then you get a result ameliorating or taming sovereignty over honored theme in American foreign poli- that runs contrary to what you hoped to the long run. I think it could in certain cy. Do you see the Obama administration achieve in the first place. settings where you have more regional- as diverting paths from the recent past? I have a sense that that’s what President ism developing or a kind of transnational What do you see as ahead with regard to Obama is talking about. You have prin- identity emerging, which was the ideal of morality in foreign policy? ciples, but to be pragmatic about their the European community. That identity elshtain: President Obama is some- application. If he can steer that course, has run into considerable trouble, not just one who’s well aware of the moral voice. which is a course not unique to him, it because the euro, as currency, is shaky I take him at his word when he says he’s would be a very good course to stay on. at the moment and a number of the a devout Christian, and he gave him- It’s going to be a challenge. Also, I’ve members of the European community self to Jesus Christ 20 or 25 years ago. noticed throughout the last few weeks would like to go off it rather than stay on I believe him when he says that. I don’t that the Obama administration is holding it, but also because the constitution for think that’s just fooling around. It’s hard on to a good many of the policies put in it has been rejected by France and by the to be African-American and not to have place under executive privilege during Dutch. It’s not so easy for people to feel that voice when you saw how powerful it the previous administration. I’m assum- that they’re going to relinquish more and was in the Civil Rights Era with Martin ing that’s because once you get in there, more control to an anonymous bureau- Luther King, where you had the fusion and you receive all the threat assessments cracy in Brussels where the headquarters of political and moral imperatives. It’s a and all that information, it has a very so- are. You’ve got the little local cheese powerful combination. Obama is aware bering influence about the threats we’re maker in some small village in France, of that, but probably also appropriately up against. I suspect you’ll see a mixed and he will ask, “Why should I have to do wary of that being a kind of unmediated picture from the Obama administration. what they tell me to do?” Better to have voice in foreign affairs. If we take him at It will be interesting to see this played the cheese makers organize across all his word that he’s read Reinhold Niebuhr out. Europe, so they have a say in something. carefully and is aware of what Niebuhr I think that’s good. [end] called the strange ironies of American There’s been a huge debate in inter- national relations for a long time as to whether international relations between states take place in what’s called an anarchic arena, where there’s no order of any kind, or whether in fact there’s The Boisi Center for something like a society where states are Religion and American tied together in all kinds of ways. Even Public Life states that are in conflict can have areas Boston College of agreement that are conflict free. So all 24 Quincy Road the years of the Cold War, the U.S. and Chestnut Hill, MA 02467 the U.S.S.R. were a party to the Antarctic Agreement, for example, to make sure that the Antarctic stayed demilitarized, tel 617-552-1860 and no one violated it. fax 617-552-1863 This gets complicated because you’ve [email protected] got these connections that the standard Visit bc.edu/boisi-resources notion of realism can’t account for, but for a complete set of the boisicenter there they are. That’s not quite global Boisi Center Interviews and civil society, but it shows you that there audio, video, photographs, @boisi_center are thick connections of all sorts that we and transcripts from our often don’t think about. events.

4 the boisi center interview: jean bethke elshtain