> These two groups do not mirror each other as easily as the people in the upper quadrants. In theory a primacist in the upper left could become a prioritizer in the upper right if he was convinced of American weakness. The bottom two quadrants, however, do not just differ in their perception of American strength, but also in the particular values espoused.
They're not mirrors because what you call a "power-based viewpoint" here is just one particular instance (or perhaps a few related instances) of a value-based viewpoint, not an equal and opposite type of thing. That's not a square, it's a collapsed god-knows-how-many-dimensional polytope. There are realpolitik arguments advanced in China too: they advocate for very different things. You can adopt as utterly orthodox a realist understanding of the objective interests of the state as you like - but the fact remains that individual human beings are not states, and it takes more than instrumental reason to make a person adopt state interests as their own.
I'm less sure if the top and bottom quadrants meaningfully differ. Don't primarcists and internationalists basically agree on issues of democracy and power? I.e. If you believe in liberal democracy, you would want to sustain US power. And if you want to sustain US power, you would believe in democracy. While Select Committee and Marco Rubio may disagree about things, it's not clear that it is the issue of power vs democracy that sets them apart. Same for the others falling in the same verticals.
One thing potentially worth noting is that the ”Prioritizers” on China sound very realist, very… John Mearsheimer , very Paul Kennedy.
And yet, every time I see a media appearance by Mearsheimer, it’s on Judge Napolitano’s “Judging Freedom” or Glenn Greenwald’s “System Update”. And those guys feel very “Restrainer”, very suspicious of US motives and especially Israeli motives.
> These two groups do not mirror each other as easily as the people in the upper quadrants. In theory a primacist in the upper left could become a prioritizer in the upper right if he was convinced of American weakness. The bottom two quadrants, however, do not just differ in their perception of American strength, but also in the particular values espoused.
They're not mirrors because what you call a "power-based viewpoint" here is just one particular instance (or perhaps a few related instances) of a value-based viewpoint, not an equal and opposite type of thing. That's not a square, it's a collapsed god-knows-how-many-dimensional polytope. There are realpolitik arguments advanced in China too: they advocate for very different things. You can adopt as utterly orthodox a realist understanding of the objective interests of the state as you like - but the fact remains that individual human beings are not states, and it takes more than instrumental reason to make a person adopt state interests as their own.
Very interesting framework, though the same quadrants probably not only applies to Republicans but Democrats too.
I'm less sure if the top and bottom quadrants meaningfully differ. Don't primarcists and internationalists basically agree on issues of democracy and power? I.e. If you believe in liberal democracy, you would want to sustain US power. And if you want to sustain US power, you would believe in democracy. While Select Committee and Marco Rubio may disagree about things, it's not clear that it is the issue of power vs democracy that sets them apart. Same for the others falling in the same verticals.
One thing potentially worth noting is that the ”Prioritizers” on China sound very realist, very… John Mearsheimer , very Paul Kennedy.
And yet, every time I see a media appearance by Mearsheimer, it’s on Judge Napolitano’s “Judging Freedom” or Glenn Greenwald’s “System Update”. And those guys feel very “Restrainer”, very suspicious of US motives and especially Israeli motives.
Where do the old realists fall on this?