This document discusses political philosophy and foreign policy using concepts from emergentism and codependency theory. It proposes mapping interventions on axes based on their frequency and amplitude to characterize strategies. Low frequency-low amplitude and high frequency-high amplitude strategies are less effective, while high frequency-low amplitude (formative) and low frequency-high amplitude (redemptive) strategies can be adapted from nature. This framework is applied to analyze promoting democracy abroad and responses to unrest in the Middle East.

2. Axes of Codependency (a/pathetic) & Creativity (trans/formative or redemptive) are in play with
the following tensions, some high frequency - low amplitude and others low frequency - high
amplitude:
re: authenticity - our formative and transformative experiences, everyday formation &
development vs the liminal & metanoia
re: relationships - our expression of charismatic (intersubjective) and transformative
(intrasubjective) gifts as ordinary and extraordinary
re: values - discovered values and the gift of novelty
re: methods - subsidiarity and socialization
re: hermeneutics - minimalist telos and proleptic realizations
My political philosophy is simple: Government should be as small as possible but as large as
necessary, in the latter case, if and only if it is and remains competent, affordable and necessary.
I pulled part of my Emergentist Deontology out on them - as I view biosemiotic emergence as a
journey of matter toward increasing degrees of freedom. Journey as a minimalist telos, of course;
freedom not in any absolute sense, obviously. From observing the roles that incrementalism
plays in nature, aided by occasional departures from equilibrium, I have elaborated my Rubrics
for Intervention as a master narrative of normativity with my axes of codependency (a/pathetic
behavior) and creativity (trans/formative, although I use the term redemptive for evocative
effect). It very much pulls together insights I have gleaned from my management and parenting

3. experiences, also from study of entomology, addiction psychology, subsidiarity principles and so
on. Perhaps there's a John Nash out there who could formalize my scheme ;)
An Illustrative Political Case Study of the Emergentist Deontology - Rubrics for Intervention
(master narrative of normativity)
Subject: Freedom Doctrines & Arab Springs
Below are 2 recent communiques to the Wash Post, the first as conciliatory as I could muster,
the second as frustrated as I could be and in neither case, anti-Semitic, I promise (neither
Zionist, to be sure). One clarification. When I speak of a "dovish modern liberalism," that is
not a reference to pacifism per se but to those who've already bought into Just War theorizing
but whose calculus may be suboptimal. Otherwise, I wholly resonate with the pacifist
sensibility and view nonviolence to be an unequivocal Gospel imperative. This is to say that I
consider Just War Principles to be a pastoral accomodation to human weakness and neither a
theoretical capitulation, which is not theologically possible, nor some exegetical rationalization,
which I simply can't see, that otherwise would compromise or water-down the clear,
unambiguous teachings of Jesus, Ghandi and MLK or the robust example of our brothers and
sisters in Egypt. The voices and prophetic witnesses of pacifists are indispensable. Indeed, to
me, they represent the most fully authentic proleptic value-realizations of the Kingdom in our
midst.
Be well.
John Sylvest
New Orleans
________________________________________________________________________
I would imagine that a great deal of nuance necessarily gets lost in translation in anyone's
attempts to articulate think tank-formulated policy positions for newspaper audiences. For
example, in Dr. Krauthammer's recent Post column regarding a Freedom Agenda, in my view,
there are several ideas that invite more nuance.
How allergic one culture versus another might be to democracy requires sociological data and
assessments that do not lend themselves to facile historical comparisons. In addition to that, I
suppose the most salient distinction that I would offer is that between goals & ends and ways &
means. I doubt that he was being disingenuous in suggesting that all who share the former thus
agree on the latter vis a vis Arab democratization.
Further, I recognize that divergent strategic views are grounded in empirical and practical
assessments and do not otherwise necessarily reflect either epistemic or moral hubris, a charge
often leveled at the neocons. As it is, one must also be on guard against the postmodern vice
of excessive humility in both cases.
And one must further resist ideology. Over against libertarianism, we must reject the notion that
the scope and competence of our influence is necessarily limited. Over against isolationism, we

4. must reject the notion that our destinies are not inextricably intertwined globally. Over against
a dovish modern liberalism, we must reject any pollyannish perspective that underestimates
totalitarian and fascist impulses and asymmetric terrorist threats. We must even reject a classic
liberalism that imagines itself fully to be some God-ordained system that has been derived
deontologically from natural law even as we embrace such a classic liberal approach as
recognizes itself merely as a normative method that has been warranted pragmatically via
helpful biases, like the subsidiarity principle, and placed in service of an unconditional and
self-evident human dignity whose rights are universal.
In devising our methods of intervention, whether for just war principles, parenting,
codependency theory or even pest control, we can turn to nature for its lessons, I believe, as we
observe the emergent dynamics from which order has trumped chaos, patterns have betrayed
paradox, the systematic has tamed the random, and the probabilistic has mediated between
chance and necessity. It is the dance between the symmetric and asymmetric that we must
now learn as our species remains threatened by extinction whether via nuclear bang or
ecological whimper. And asymmetric warfare is no mere analogy but the greatest danger of
post-postmodernity. So, what might we abstract from nature's lessons to translate into concrete
responses in order to avert cataclysm? Which paths, indeed, invite fellow travelers and which
our everlasting peril?
Perhaps a modest deontology can inform our methods? To wit: If we measure interventions
in terms of both frequency and amplitude and then graph them, respectively, on x and y axes,
we can then characterize the resulting quadrants in terms of 1) low frequency - low amplitude,
2) high frequency - high amplitude, 3) high frequency - low amplitude and 4) low frequency high amplitude. From the standpoint of adaptation and survival, especially in the biosemiotic
realm, strategies #1 and #2 do not often present, but strategies #3 and #4 recommend
themselves, for example, both in pest control (think both roach sprays and bombs) and in
parenting (think daily affirmations and occasional groundings). Ongoing diplomacy and just
wars also fit this pattern. We can draw a line down the center of quadrants #3 and #4 and call it
the Axis of Creativity, where our high frequency - low amplitude interventions constitute our
formative responses and our low frequency - high amplitude interventions might be considered,
in a word, redemptive. This also seems to well describe the soteriological strategies that most of
our Great Traditions even ascribe to the Deity (and the wisest among them temper such
kataphatic references with apophatic sensibilities). Others might simply subscribe to a Big
Bang cosmology, but the efficacies of the strategy are there for the learning. So, too, are the
inefficacies of what I call the Axis of Codependency, which is formed by another line that can
be drawn between quadrants #1 and #2, where our low frequency - low amplitude interventions
reveal a rather apathetic disposition and our high frequency - high amplitude interventions
might be considered, in a word, pathetic. In terms of foreign policy, these codependent
quadrants would represent isolationism and interventionism, the worst form of the latter being
militaristic. This paradigm would apply to domestic policy-making as well regarding both
economic and social issues and reveals a host of other insidious -isms, such as socialism and
moral statism, for example.
Such are the tensions I see playing out, for example, as Dr. Krauthammer extrapolates a
Freedom Doctrine from the Freedom Agenda. Where he suggests that the United States use its
influence to help democrats everywhere, his use of the word, influence, thus calls for

5. disambiguation, such as when he recommends training, resources and diplomacy as well as
massive assistance, covert and overt, financial and diplomatic, to democratic parties, all which
are relatively high frequency-low amplitude strategies, as distinct from military deployments,
which are high amplitude but should be low frequency?
I do think we need to be clear in that, when we speak of non-secular actors or religious
influences, we are advocating only a state secularism, which eschews, per our own
establishment clause, any theocratic government, but which does not in any way, per our own
free exercise clause, interfere with a robust religious expression in society, culture, the
economy or even political arena, although any religious influence in the Public Square will
require some translation that is fully transparent to human reason in order to be effective. To be
clear, then, when we say political, we distinguish between governing versus campaigning,
administrating versus lobbying.
Finally, there are questions that present because of human finitude, what we can afford, what
we can sustain, what actionable intelligence we can gather, what we can properly guage as
reasonable prospects for success. And these questions present now as we seek to balance a
budget and reform entitlements no less than when we launched two wars and a trillion dollar
prescription entitlement, all on credit?
I find Dr. Krauthammer's analyses to be always insightful and evocative, even though I often
strongly disagree - especially on any U.S. projection of force, occasionally even on what he
suggests might be the efficacies of strident rhetoric. I do not want to imagine a world that lacks
the moral realism articulated by him and the followers of the late Irving Kristol or the moral
clarity of their voices even though I will often differ with their strategic analyses and practical
solutions. I am grateful for their contributions to civic discourse.
________________________________________________________________________
Dr. Kristol, your analysis echoes those of Jonah Goldberg and Dr.Krauthammer and I think in
many ways is spot-on.Still, I am trying to resist such a rush to judgment as would immediately
infer that you are all suggesting that what has been strikingly lacking is... well ... a strike.
For your part, you all might desist from a rush to judgment of the Obama administration to the
extent it hasn't engaged in the neocon prescription for a bellicose-enough rhetoric. After all,
we've got to get no too few Americans out of harm's way and the all too difficult facts on the
ground reveal that they are in very serious peril due to a Libyan madman?
Who really doubts that aggressive covert efforts, direct and indirect, except ... ahem ... legal
(contra the Contras), are not indeed underway? And who doesn't believe that overt efforts,
including the use of force, are not being prudently deliberated ... ahem ... except with allies and
international organizations (over against a mere facade of a coalition)? After all, our own
unipolarity ... your word, not mine ... is a tad overstretched? It is strained fiscally because, along
with the lack of restraint your cabal now decries regarding entitlements, economic stimuli and
earmarks, there was an earlier GOP spending spree -on credit, not paid for- of $ one trillion on a
prescription drug plan and another $ one trillion on Iran & Afghanistan, with $750 billion yet to
be incurred per theCBO, about which your cronies cyncially remain silent .
If our military is not so very robust and not too very nimble at this juncture, you of all people

6. (who so zealously deploy them) might forgive their exhaustion? We have national guardsmen
who've been on 5 tours of duty recently!
And you're right, we can't depend on analysts and commentators in such moments. But we can
have more faith in our collective intelligence agencies now that they've been better insulated
from ideologues who'd meddle with and selectively filter their workproducts. For these reasons
and many more, many of us indeed prefer to have Obama and not your choice, "Bomb Bomb
Bomb Bomb Bomb Iran McCain," in the White House to deal with this situation. So VERY
much more prefer!
History is indeed full of ironies. One of its greatest is that so few bayonets will have been needed
to vindicate the neocon pan-Arab democratization domino theory! (Unless one suffers some
grand delusion that Iraq was one of the dominoes.) It is also one of American history's saddest
ironies, both in terms of blood and treasure. And not just our own, but untold numbers of Iraqi
civilians.