My Education

My undergrad degree - international relations - was a mix of history, government and economics, with a little bit if cultural stuff and languages thrown in. As I've mentioned here before, the early to mid-90s were an interesting time to be an IR major. My first IR textbook was published post-wall coming down, but just barely, and it still referred to the geopolitical system in terms of three "worlds". At the time, it felt like the most interesting major ever because the topic was just so fluid.

In hindsight, though, the topic wasn't actually all that fluid - at least it wasn't taught that way. There was a clear distinction between my government classes and my history classes and in my government classes, some institutions were presumed permanent, like NATO and the UN.

The scandals unfolding at the UN over the past few months/years have already shaken my already only theoretical belief in that organization. But NATO? It's only a symbolic partnership anyway, right? I mean, pretty much. So why does this Mark Steyn article make me both a little bit sad and a little concerned that everything I learned in college was wrong?

I guess I think he's probably right.

At least I'll always have art history. The relationship between art and sociopolitical culture in 1920s France can't change at this point, right?

UPDATE: I should clarify...when I was actually in college, I didn't believe that NATO was a purely symbolic organization. I thought the UN could actually get some good done, too. Mostly, I honestly believed that if Article 5 was ever invoked (though my world view didn't lead me to think that would ever, ever happen), all of the members of NATO would step up to fulfill their moral obligation. Yes, I was very naive.