Yeah, it's interesting that while Nietzsche's influence on Freud is undoubted (Freud spoke of it in his correspondence), the good doctor hardly referred to Nietzsche in his work.

Anyway, thanks again for the great post - I for one hope to see more philosophical debate 'round these parts (I'm probably in a very small minority on that one).

Posted at May 16, 2008 5:49 PM in response to American Politics and Nietzsche's Will To Power

Genghis, great post, but I would object to your characterization of Nietzsche as a "nihilist." His self-ascribed purpose was to combat nihilism, but our understanding of what that word means is largely obscured by our own moralization of it.

In any case, while Nietzsche's thoughts on power may be disturbing to liberal sensibilities, they actually lend themselves quite well to a radically democratic conception of politics. For instance, Nietzsche's understanding of "justice" was that it represented a provisional accord between parties of equal power. But the claim of justice is always self-defeating if it attempts to close off, once and for all, the struggle between competing powers. Rather, an honest claim to justice has to ensure that the power struggle within a community, which need not be violent, but could take the form of democratic negotiation, continues.

Thus, "A system of law conceived as sovereign and general, not as a means for use in the fight between units of power, but as a means against fighting in general [...] this would be a principle hostile to life, an attempt to assassinate the future of man, a sign of fatigue and a secret path to nothingness [i.e. nihilism]" (Genealogy of Morality, 2:11).

For an interesting introduction to Nietzsche's understanding of politics, read his early essay Homer's Contest, which deals with the politics of Athenian democracy.

Briefly, in response to Preach, if you read Nietzsche closely, you would see that the "defensiveness" you describe is understood by Nietzsche as the result of a will to power stifled by the domination of greater powers. This leads to a main concept in Nietzsche's thought, ressentiment, which is the defining characteristic of all Judeo-Christian and post-Christian (i.e. our own) moralities.

Posted at May 16, 2008 4:44 PM in response to American Politics and Nietzsche's Will To Power

I imagine someone will pick it up when I go.

Posted at May 14, 2008 7:40 AM in response to Today's Recommended Reader Blogs

Intellectuals do have this tendency to think highly of themselves, don't they.

Which is somehow worse than the tendency of so many to disregard anything that might be called "intellectual?" Perhaps for fear that it might disturb a complacent view of the world...

Posted at April 30, 2008 8:19 PM in response to On Founding Influences, Left and Right

Great post Peter, thanks. We truly cannot understand the dynamics of American foreign policy without looking at the dimensions of messianism and Manicheanism that undergird foreign policy discourses on both sides of the aisle. Unfortunately, the project for a liberal world order, even one based in multilateral institutions, implies a sort of simplified vision of the world into with us or against us, which shows just how deeply problematic it will be to negotiate the various channels of foreign policy thinking in the near future.

Posted at April 30, 2008 5:24 PM in response to On Founding Influences, Left and Right

I'm not sure I follow. . . certainly some folks who have been grievously wounded by racism in this country will compensate by rabble-rousing and "gloating," as you say, but do we not have something to learn from those who offer a more radical point of view than we are exposed to in the mainstream, and even the not-so-mainstream liberal, press? Perhaps we should not be so quick to write them off as opportunists. Granted, Wright's latest performance was in some ways despicable, but to write off the point of view of radicals and all those who still talk about racism with some degree of candor in toto is to give in to the likes of Tucker Carlson, who "will not stand by" while white men are told that, perhaps, they have benefited unduly from the racialized framework through which this country largely views itself.

Posted at April 29, 2008 7:31 PM in response to Obama in the Wilderness

Indeed, where would neoconservatism be without Woodrow Wilson? We are reminded of this problematic every time Clinton or Obama immediately qualifies any promise to withdraw from Iraq with a guarantee that they will use increased resource to restore and enlarge our armed forces. Some degree of imperialism is by now well sedimented in the foreign policy discourses of both the Right and the Left (if we can call it that).

Posted at April 29, 2008 3:49 PM in response to Too Close for Comfort

Ideology breeds incompetence, insofar as it renders empiricism worthless and submits all facts to the test of doctrinal consistency. Bush himself, it seems to me, was without any substantive political identity, until 9/11 when he saw the potential for a redemptive and world-historical presidency, and has since taken on the task of the [neo]conservative agenda with glee, insofar as it lends itself to grand, Manichean struggles for the future of the world.

Posted at April 29, 2008 3:46 PM in response to Ideology Or Incompetence?

Are you kidding? He's the best thing we've got going!

Posted at March 27, 2008 9:44 PM in response to Today's Recommended Reader Blogs

This is, I think, a very informative and well-written piece, except that it makes no mention of the all-important problem of settlements. This is central to US policy as well, which has consistently been to state opposition to continued settlements in Palestinian Jerusalem while turning a blind eye while building immutable goes on. This sort of bare-faced duplicity is, I bet, at the heart of the increased acceptance of violence among Palestinians. Violence tends to be seen as a solution only when words are shown to be empty.

Posted at March 19, 2008 4:19 PM in response to Israel, the Palestinians and Elections