Foreign policy views

Post Reply New Topic

Alright, I am going to use an imperfect test as a springboard to talking about foreign policy.

http://www.okcupid.com/tests/take?testi ... 6926648421

I'll even post my results:

----------------------------------------------------------------
Isolationist

You scored -3 Force, -16 Institutions, and -15 Ideals!

You don't believe in using military force except in extreme circumstances, you don't want your country to get involved in any entangling alliances and treaties, and you have no ideals, or at least not any that you think are worth fighting for. It's quite possible that you live in a bomb shelter in Montana, and wear a hat made of aluminum foil (you know, so THEY can't listen to your thoughts).
-----------------------------------------------------------------

However, what do the people here think about foreign policy/foreign affairs?

I'll include a rough poll to get some understanding. Hopefully I include most major ideas people might have, but if I do not, then I apologize. Just pick the one that you like the best. Also, please explain your ideas.

Your result for The Foreign Policy School Test ...
Idealist

You scored -9 Force, 9 Institutions, and 15 Ideals!

You believe in using international institutions to advance your ideals, but you are not a huge fan of using military force to do so. In fact, if the world was only populated by people like you, militaries wouldn't need to exist. Unfortunately it isn't, and you will probably be killed at a young age by a sociopath who asks you to step inside his van. If by some chance you should survive, here's my advice to you: Have lots of kids. If you can outbreed everyone else, humanity has a chance.

---

Anyways, of your poll options I would say "several of the above" but at some point I'll pick the one I consider most important and vote for that one.

Yeah... I can understand that, it is just with issues like this it is hard to both be broad enough to get a person's view, and still pinpoint a specific theme. I dunno, I mean, I know it is too late to rewrite the poll, but I am glad to get advice. I tried to write a reasonably fair poll.

I ended up going with "non-interventionist trade will save the world" because economic freedom tends to both promote economic prosperity and spur the development of personal liberty. It also facilitates cultural exchange, whereby flawed systems will be undermined by knowledge of a better way of doing things. Trade also allows for more international cooperation to occur and breaks down the barriers that divide different peoples. Interconnected economies make war difficult and unprofitable.

As for the other options:

"Stronger international governing forces are necessary"
I'm not sure if I'd so "stronger" so much as simply more competent. The EU is not a horrible concept, even if some aspects of it have been problematic, and more international cooperation, especially in trade/economic ties would be a good thing. Also, fewer international barriers on immigration, travel, etc.

"Military intervention is needed to destroy the bad governments"
Only in extreme circumstances.

"Nations are always self-serving, so we need force to protect our own interests"
Violence should never be a first option, but until everyone else lays down their arms we need to be able to defend ourselves should the need arise.

"Leave the world alone, and it will leave us alone."
Short-sighted and wrong.

"Respectful diplomacy will make the world better"
Yes, this is a good idea. More open diplomatic ties, and again, attempts to undermine international barriers would be a good thing.

"Foreign aid is needed to handle our problems"
Helping people not starve to death or die of easily treatable diseases sounds like a nice thing to me. We should do more of that.

"Terrible institutions and ideas need to be undermined by reason or revolt to improve the world"
Yes, but preferably reason until it becomes clear that revolt is necessary to rectify the situation.

Hehe...well, I happen to have an inferiority complex and a perpetual tan, but I will have to agree with the rest. For the poll, like Orwell, I could have chosen more than one. I went for the respectful diplomacy because it seems to be a good thing in most any situation.

On a more general note: I think that in foreign affairs we should generally respect other nations' right to self-determination. We should also eliminate almost all trade restrictions. We should try to use force only when necessary to defend ourselves or our allies. (But we should generally avoid alliances) However, we should also use diplomacy to try to spread ideals of civil liberties and human rights. Force is sometimes justified in protecting a weaker nation that is being threatened by a nation that does not respect human rights (ie the Korean War) or when there are severe, widespread, and extreme human rights violations taking place (Sudan and possibly Zimbabwe spring to mind). Foreign aid is good, but really should primarily be private organizations choosing to donate such things rather than being a purely governmental undertaking.

Orwell, keep in mind, options are designed to have an appealing logic to them, otherwise the poll is more likely to be skewed. So, of course you can say that everything in there has an element of being right, but the issue is always most right.

Well, I selected stronger to reflect a mindset. I mean, yes, better is always better, but stronger is clear direction while competent is less clear.


Mostly to get neoconservative idealists.

Realist view, the idea being that improvement is not expected so much as just a continual problem of maintaining high levels of power.


Well, of course it isn't a terrible idea. Nobody will put "terrible idea here" on a poll. The idea being that foreign affairs issues are caused by one government being unfair to the other more so than other factors.


Trying to capture the Jeff Sachs view that the world needs foreign aid to be better, combined with the notion that our problems are from impoverished nations.

Trying to get ahold of Marxian views against the capitalist system, internationalist anti-nationalist views, atheist views that blame religion for all things, etc. It has some truth to it, but the idea is that there is something foundational to cultures or social institutions that must be reformed before peace occurs.

I support military intervention whenever it is needed.

Soft power trumps hard power, when feasible.

Why bleed when a little talking can settle differences?

ruveyn

Peaceful unification of the world.

I started doing the test but there was no button for "raise the political consciousness of the working class"

Nice. Well, I think I mentioned that the test was imperfect.

Wilsonian

You scored -3 Force, 16 Institutions, and 3 Ideals!

You are a true believer, a wild-eyed zealot. You aren't afraid to use force to achieve your ends, though you'd prefer to use the UN, and you truly believe that a country's foreign policy should follow its ideals. You mean well, but know this: the road to Baghdad is paved with good intentions. You are most likely young and idealistic, and you probably trust whatever your leaders say. After all, they would never lie to you.

I'd vote all of the above except for 5 and 4 only if you turn always into largely - most countries do look to peaceful diplomacy to insure their interests but there are still plenty of rogue regimes around and if the last option doesn't work fast enough at least one of the democracy's needs a big enough military to spray the weeds.

As far as the quiz - I took it but bailed once I saw that I had to sign up to see my results.

You don't have to sign up. It is confusing as it is an offer, but you can just bypass it by just telling it to show you your results. At least, I didn't have to sign in or up to get mine.

My foreign policy view? The Prime Directive. The closest on the poll there would be "leave the world alone...", but if the world doesn't reciprocate, then it's open season...