Realpolitik

I try to stay out of issues where I have no relevant contribution and am likely to offend my Lefty readers.  If there are any left.

In this case, I just have an observation about a left-over social institution.

When George W. Bush came to power, the opposition to his foreign policy was from a group who publicly consider their position to be Realpolitik (pronounced re-AL-politeek).

Most of the opposition to Bush joined the Obama foreign policy team.  A few have admitted they were wrong about the successful Bush Iraq War, but most haven't. Self-honesty is not their strong suit.

The current administration is following in the path of Realpolitik in sending a kind note to Iran's tyrant Khamenei before the election, in delaying more than a week in criticizing his cruelty to defenders of democracy and in offering a warm hand to Hugo Chavez, the Castro brother and Daniel Ortega. Now the administration is supporting wannabe tyrant Manuel Zelaya.It is time to tell my readers what Realpolitik is about.

Realpolitik is first attributed to Metternich as a form of cold-blooded national self interest.  In the Cold War, realpolitik became American policy in dealing with the USSR. The policy meant that America supported all enemies of the USSR even (and most often) when they were tyrants.   Realpolitik for sixty years has meant supporting tyrants. When applied against communism, the Left hated realpolitik.

Realpolitik is now back in style with the current administration and its foreign policy advisors. That is clearly what we are doing now.  American foreign policy is being driven by the dregs, remnants and romantic nostalgia for the old Cold War.  We support tyrants out of a misplaced sentimentalism.  

Woe to the sorry citizens of the many nations who don't like their tyrannical leaders, until this administration is replaced.