|
Realpolitik
By Jack Kinsella
"Realpolitik" is one of those German words that can't be adequately translated without additional background information.
The term itself coined in the 19th century to describe the 'take-no-prisoners' politics of pre-WWI Europe. But the word also carries with it the subliminal recollection that it was the hardball application of realpolitik that resulted in the outbreak of the War to End All Wars in 1914.
The word can be used both literally or as a pejorative. But in its most literal sense, it means political realism. Arnaud de Borchegrave defined "realpolitik" as "the politics of the real world rather than politics based on theoretical, moral or idealistic concerns."
But, as I noted, "realpolitik" is a German word. (Like "Fahrfegnuggen" from the old VW commercials. It takes a lot of defining.)
"Realpolitik" is also a pejorative, or contemptuous, term for foreign policy initiatives that recall the fate of European realpolitik efforts at the turn of the last century.
The last time "realpolitik" was bandied about in US intellectual circles was when Henry Kissinger was Secretary of State. "Realpolitik" is one of those words than can really only be completely understood by a native German speaker.
The way Kissinger introduced it to American politics was as a "policy for dealing with other powerful nations in a practical manner rather than on the basis of political doctrine or ethics."
Applying the American definition of 'realpolitik' to US foreign policy sounds seductively like 'common sense'.
Unfortunately, the old adage that "sense is anything but common" applies -- in spades -- when what should be common sense collides with politics. Politics is ideological in nature.
"Realpolitik" demands setting aside ideology in determining foreign policy and making the hard decisions. Once again, it sounds like good old common sense -- especially in wartime.
Another way to understand the German sense of "realpolitik" is to substitute a uniquely American term, "political correctness" with all of its rich, uniquely American nuances. "Realpolitik" is like that -- only it has the exact opposite meaning.
"Realpolitik" sounds like a great idea, especially translated into American, without the subliminal historical context. In its 21st century incarnation, it means, "whatever works."
But the Scriptures remind us, not once, but twice, that, "There is a way which seemeth right unto a man, but the end thereof are the ways of death." (Proverbs 14:12, 16:25)
With just a surface understanding, one would think that I am a 'realpolitik' kinda guy. Looking at it from that limited understanding of the difference, I'd agree.
But 'realpolitik', while the opposite of 'political correctness' is just as subject to the law of unintended consequences as political correctness is.
Ideological politics demands actions must be dictated by a universal and unchanging set of rules, and should not be aimed at the achievement of a specific (and more limited) set of goals.
Ideologues tend to reject compromises that abandon their ideals, preferring to sacrifice short-term political gain in order to adhere to their principles. The school of realpolitik would brand me an ideologue, and a dangerous ideologue, at that.
And I don't know if I could refute their argument about the dangers posed by ideology. We are at war with an ideology that demands either submission or destruction. We are hamstrung in that war by our own Judeo-Christian ideology.
To win it, one side or the other will have to abandon their ideology in favor of "realpolitik" or "whatever works."
The Left's effort to abandon the war in Iraq was an example of realpolitik in action. The Right's refusal to compromise on its promises to the Iraqis was an example of ideological politics in action.
Both would be responsible for triggering laws of unintended consequences, and neither could be applied without triggering new ones.
America's ideological commitment to her God-given principles constitute her biggest Achille's Heel in her war against radical Islam. Radical Islam's strength is that the Koran advises the use of 'realpolitik' -- in the sense of 'whatever works -- as a tactical weapon.
"Realpolitik" -- the application of common sense into foreign policy -- sounds like a great idea. Ideological politics -- principles before compromise -- sounds good on paper, but a lot harder to practice than it is to preach.
The reason the situation looks hopeless is because the conflict is spiritual, but it is being fought in the natural, using natural weapons and natural strategies.
So because the conflict is spiritual in nature, it defies natural logic.
But as bad as it looks, it isn't hopeless. It is precisely the conditions the Bible predicted would exist in the last days. It is more evidence that we are the generation to whom the prophecies of Scripture are addressed.
And it is proof that we can trust the Bible as God's revealed Word.
The Bible also said that before the Master of Realpolitik would be revealed, the Restrainer would first be taken out of the way. (2nd Thessalonians 2:7-8)
"For the Lord Himself shall descend with a trump...and we which are alive and remain shall be caught up together with them in the clouds, to meet the Lord in the air: and so shall we ever be with the Lord." (1st Thessalonians 4:16-17)
As we watch the picture painted by Scripture for the last days emerge and come into focus, sometimes we need to step back from what it looks like, and spend a little time thinking about what it MEANS.
It means that Jesus is still in control. His Word is alive and operating openly in this generation, before our very eyes. It means that we KNOW the answer to the question: "What is this world coming to?" And it means our obligation to share that answer is more pressing than ever before.
He is coming. Soon.
Original Article
| 
