A big question is: to what extent do the driving forces behind this stem from ideology, and to what extent are they about the naked self-interest of those involved?
I would argue the two become intertwined when it comes to the Superpower status of the United States at least.
That is to say, the rejection of Westphalian Diplomacy by the United States from the 1990s onwards is a form of ideology. For America, international self interest then becomes something like: The Implementation and Continuation of American Exceptionalism.
I agree. Though private self-interest as opposed to national self-interest complicates matters. It is possible that actors behave according to their personal goals, rather than that of the nation.
Something that comes to mind (not covered in the essay) is the Military Industrial Complex of the United States.
Much of MIC's behaviour can be categorised as this sort of self-interest. Certain corporations entwined within it - such as Raytheon and Boeing - profit immensely from the various shades of war entered into by the United States, whether directly or by proxy.
Nonetheless, a degree of national interest remains. It may be a reasonable assumption that these corporations still want American power to be preeminent in the world, even if they are prepared to manipulate its presence to their advantage.
I think that on a number of occasions we can see a nation's ideology working against it's own interests. For example, American capitalism doesn't help the nation when market forces dictate that industrial production is moved abroad, along with the accompanying jobs.
I think this is what we're seeing in the US somewhat now - a decoupling of a nation's prevailing ideology from national interests.
Right, true national interests are another question entirely. Such interests have to be recognised practically, using Realpolitick. A confusion of ideology with national interest may eventually lead to "the chickens coming home to roost".
A big question is: to what extent do the driving forces behind this stem from ideology, and to what extent are they about the naked self-interest of those involved?
I would argue the two become intertwined when it comes to the Superpower status of the United States at least.
That is to say, the rejection of Westphalian Diplomacy by the United States from the 1990s onwards is a form of ideology. For America, international self interest then becomes something like: The Implementation and Continuation of American Exceptionalism.
I agree. Though private self-interest as opposed to national self-interest complicates matters. It is possible that actors behave according to their personal goals, rather than that of the nation.
Something that comes to mind (not covered in the essay) is the Military Industrial Complex of the United States.
Much of MIC's behaviour can be categorised as this sort of self-interest. Certain corporations entwined within it - such as Raytheon and Boeing - profit immensely from the various shades of war entered into by the United States, whether directly or by proxy.
Nonetheless, a degree of national interest remains. It may be a reasonable assumption that these corporations still want American power to be preeminent in the world, even if they are prepared to manipulate its presence to their advantage.
Yes. The MIC is a factor, for sure.
I think that on a number of occasions we can see a nation's ideology working against it's own interests. For example, American capitalism doesn't help the nation when market forces dictate that industrial production is moved abroad, along with the accompanying jobs.
I think this is what we're seeing in the US somewhat now - a decoupling of a nation's prevailing ideology from national interests.
Right, true national interests are another question entirely. Such interests have to be recognised practically, using Realpolitick. A confusion of ideology with national interest may eventually lead to "the chickens coming home to roost".