Reflections on Resolution

The seemingly obvious thing to talk about in the aftermath of our debate would be the whole what is a “consensus” debate. Did the realists ultimately win because they were able to show the logical flaw in the argument by the constructivists? Can the constructivists vote for the resolution if some people were not going to vote for it? Did the constructivists really make an attempt and building a consensus? But instead of talking about these things since I have already dealt with the whole Habermassian debate before I would like to talk about the resolution itself. The whole argument in the class seemed to deal with weather or not the resolution was morally valid with out the support of the realists but no one wondering if it was actually a good resolution or not. I personally do not think that it was a very good resolution. And the reason it isn’t is because of the compromises that were made between the liberals and the constructivists. The liberals allowed language into the resolution that dealt with changing norms, which they should have thought was crazy talk; while the constructivists allowed language that talked about interests and gains which they were actively trying to change. How can they say that they are going to change the norms of the world when they are voting for a resolution that is actively recreating those norms right in front of them? That is my biggest issue with the resolution. I guess maybe since everyone that voted for it had something in there that they liked they can focus on that aspect and ignore the others, but when it comes to implementing it there are going to be some serious problems since the two sides believe that they have given birth to two very different resolutions. But that will be a fight on a later day that I wont have to deal with so though luck for them.

Matt Bank