Yeah I see what you're saying. Again without conceding that I share this view of this person, since I haven't read his works.
But while I don't think that position is correct, I do think it's probably valuable to have some people take that stance. It's similar to the social value in having non-political conservatism that will resist all change no matter what. We'll change anyway, but having to fight for it a little will slow down the changes, hopefully dodge some of the worst consequences, maybe prevent some changes that shouldn't actually happen.
The US should be opposed. Not because we are inherently bad, but because our interests aren't everyone's interests. An always-support, always-oppose, or case-by-case stance will each have different failure modes. I think we want a mix, as unpalatable as that can be sometimes.
If that's interpreted as can do no wrong, than always support and always oppose are just putting on blinders. I can see it as a media persona, but the intellectual dishonesty required to actually believe that is scary.
Apologists / accidents happen I can understand, but I wouldn't trust any individual pretending that they can do no wrong.
But while I don't think that position is correct, I do think it's probably valuable to have some people take that stance. It's similar to the social value in having non-political conservatism that will resist all change no matter what. We'll change anyway, but having to fight for it a little will slow down the changes, hopefully dodge some of the worst consequences, maybe prevent some changes that shouldn't actually happen.
The US should be opposed. Not because we are inherently bad, but because our interests aren't everyone's interests. An always-support, always-oppose, or case-by-case stance will each have different failure modes. I think we want a mix, as unpalatable as that can be sometimes.