Ikenberry, Deudney, and Simes on Liberal Democracy vs. Autocracy

-

Last Friday, New America Foundation Whitehead Senior Fellow Michael Lind moderated a discussion featuring three international relations heavyweights: Princeton’s G. John Ikenberry, Johns Hopkins’ Daniel Deudney, and Nixon Center President Dimitri Simes.
The four discussed Ikenberry and Deudney’s article in Foreign Affairs, “The Myth of the Autocratic Revival: Why Liberal Democracy Will Endure.”
Deudney and Ikenberry provided an excellent presentation of their Foreign Affairs thesis – and Dimitri Simes’ offered a remarkably insightful interpretation of rising powers and their implications for the United States.
I suggest you have a watch below.



–Ben Katcher

Comments

5 comments on “Ikenberry, Deudney, and Simes on Liberal Democracy vs. Autocracy

  1. Soma says:

    . You prove that within the US foreign policy community the definitions of liberal, conservative, radical have been turned on their heads ever since the Cold War ended. The “Neo-cons” and the Bush administration with them holding radical, ideologically colored positions that ultimately worked against the national interest. The nominal liberals, whether Clinton or Obama, in their interventionist ways being ideologically blinkered (pro-democracy, pro-human rights) and anything but pragmatic

    Reply

  2. Gilbert Doctorow says:

    Further to my note in February,the demolition work of Messrws Deudney, Simes and Ikenberry on Robert Kagan’s Return of History punched some holes in his argument but left the first floor standing and the bomb shelter in the basement unscathed. In my own blog Note http://usforeignpolicy.lalibreblogs.be/archive/2009/04/19/the-history-wars-ou-la-guerre-entre-les-futurologues-%E2%80%93-le-de.html#more I take the house Robert Kagan built apart brick by brick
    cordially
    Gilbert Doctorow

    Reply

  3. Gilbert Doctrorow says:

    Congratulations on an excellent presentation. You prove that within the US foreign policy community the definitions of liberal, conservative, radical have been turned on their heads ever since the Cold War ended. The “Neo-cons” and the Bush administration with them holding radical, ideologically colored positions that ultimately worked against the national interest. The nominal liberals, whether Clinton or Obama, in their interventionist ways being ideologically blinkered (pro-democracy, pro-human rights) and anything but pragmatic, so finally also working against the national interest.And then there is your own good selves occupying the only ground that might legitimately lay claim to being pragmatic and so American as apple pie.
    As an 0ld Russia hand, I was especially delighted Dmitri Simes’ remarks on the Georgian crisis, on the very limited threat Russia poses to American strategic interests and on the counter-productive, self-fulfilling nature of Robert Kagan’s neo-containment policies. But why single out Kagan? Try Stephen Sestanovich and the selective cooperation formula he set out in Foreign Affairs, Nov-Dec. 2008, which is obviously serving Mme Secretary of State in her first steps towards a “new”-old Russia policy. See my blog article reviewing that Lien : http://usforeignpolicy.lalibreblogs.be/archive/2008/12/03/obama-comment-gerer-relations-avec-la-russie.html
    cordially
    Gilbert Doctorow
    Brussels, Belgium

    Reply

  4. Syed Qamar Afzal Rizvi says:

    sorry,
    some words in the previous text are missing, the correct- text may be read:The thesis of the liberal democracy- the prudent guideline for the architects of the US foreign policy- seems a positive mark if in practice, the thesis of liberal deomocracy is free from the evils of liberal fascism.

    Reply

  5. Syed Qamar Afzal Rizvi says:

    The theis of liberal democracy-the pudent guideline for the architects of the US foreign policy_seems a postive mark if in parctice, the advocated thesis is free from the evils of liberal fascism.

    Reply

Add your comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *