What Would Harry Truman Do?
I have to say that I think the single most annoying element of intra-progressive foreign policy debates has been the recurring framing of the issue in terms of asking "what would Harry Truman do?" To me, history is just too indeterminant for this to be a useful method of argument. Today, Max Boot just says Truman would love George W. Bush. The late James Chace before he died said Truman would hate George W. Bush. When Peter Beinart was for the Iraq War, he thought Democrats should follow Truman's model. Then when he decided he was against the war, he still though Democrats should follow Truman's model.
The problem isn't that there's some problem with Truman (seems like he was great -- that's why everyone likes him so much) but there's just no real content to these "be like Truman" injunctions. You'd do just as well to make reference to Goldilocks' quest for porridge that was neither too hot nor too cold as to make the point that Truman was more hawkish than Henry Wallace but more dovish than the "rollback" fantasists of the early Cold War. That said, if it's Trumania people want, I think this business of aid to Greece and Turkey that both Boot and Beinart bring up is a total red herring.
The thing of it is that I'm not aware of anybody around nowadays who thinks we should make our foreign aid contingent on UN authorization. We give a variety of forms of assistance to a variety of countries for a variety of reasons and people raise a variety of objections to some of these programs, but the objection is never phrased in terms of the absence of UN Security Council authorization for the aid.
The UN-related issue that people debate is how seriously we should take Chapter 7 of the UN Charter which specifies that the international use of force should be conducted in accordance with Security Council dictates or else but that that stipulation doesn't "impair the inherent right of individual or collective self-defence if an armed attack occurs against a Member of the United Nations." The only war the Truman administration fought -- in Korea -- was both authorized by the UN (due to poor Soviet tactics) and was a case of collective self-defense in response to an armed attack anyways. The first Gulf War was the same.
The rule was sort of breached by the Clinton administration in Kosovo which, knowing that an attempt at authorization would be vetoed by Russia and China, launched airstrikes without one citing an "international humanitarian emergency" as justification. Russia then attempted to secure a Security Council condemnation with Resolution 6659 but the US and our NATO allies won that vote 12-3, which is a good result for NATO in a commonsense way but still left us without authorization according to the actual rules. Hence the Independent International Commission on Kosovo's famous -- and famously odd -- conclusion that the war was "illegal but legitimate."
The rule was more clearly breached by the Bush administration which not only didn't get Security Council authorization for the second Gulf War but was nowhere close to a majority.
These are the sorts of things that contemporary debates about the UN are actually about -- the use of force for reasons other than individual or collective self-defense. I don't think anything the Truman administration did or didn't do has any particular bearing on this question.
We can disagree, perhaps, about whether Truman would have gone for the Neocon foreign policy agenda. As you say, it's a pretty stupid debate to have, but we could have it.
But there is absolutely no debating that Truman would have none of this administration's pro-corporate agenda. Truman would've been tagged a Communist by the modern GOP. Certainly, he would have been one of the loudest voices decrying this administration, regardless of what he thought of particular foreign policy choices.
June 14, 2006 10:13 AM | Reply | Permalink
Yeah, it says a lot about how far right we've moved, you read Truman's speeches and nowdays he'd be way out to the left of even someone like Michael Moore
June 14, 2006 10:50 AM | Reply | Permalink
Um but re:
Someone please explain to me why whenever people discuss Truman in the vein of "what we need in current politicians" that this inconvenient fact is always left out:
The current God Truman was created by relatively current historians writing best-selling books aided by good publishing p.r. That the books and message and the image painted sold well may indeed mean that this is the kind of man that would make a popular president today....but then again, I wouldn't want to bet on it...just one point off the top of my head: the "buck stops here" thing is a perennial best seller for politicians, but I think the public might quickly tire of ornery fellows in power who like to imply in their manner that they will do what they wish and what they think is right, critics and people be damned, something which also comes along with that.
I adore the Truman as movie character president, but that is without thinking about what it was like actually having him as president. Sometimes I think there is a lot of equivalence with Bush in the "regular guy" thing, and also in the imperial "I know I'm right, no need for polls or critics" thing....and the scandals....and....well, read some serious history to decide, not just the pop icon stuff.
In any case, if his electoral political machinations are anything to study, it is as case book on what NOT to do.
June 14, 2006 1:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think that you should hold the porridge comparison in reserve and use it at key moments.
June 14, 2006 2:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
Critics and historians love the contrarian, the president who fought what they regard as the good, principled fight, and who fought it come hell or high water, regardless of silly little things like polls or even losing re-election campaigns.
What about the part leading up to that where he dragged the U.S. into Korea and sought to seize the steel mills for war-time production?
June 14, 2006 5:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
"The current God Truman was created by relatively current historians writing best-selling books aided by good publishing p.r"
Specifically, the cult of Truman was a reaction to the betrayals of the LBJ and Nixon eras. Give 'em Hell, Harry, which debuted in 1975, is a key historical marker.
It was the same zeitgeist that elected Jimmy Carter, who sunk almost as low in the polls as Truman had.
June 14, 2006 5:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
"but there's just no real content to these "be like Truman" injunctions."
Of course there is.
Truman presided over the creation of the post-war American posture that lasted until the Berlin Wall fell.
There are a few key lessons from this creation that folks are trying to impart with "be like Truman" injunctions - and in light of Iraq, these two lessons are predominant at the moment:
Truman stands for a vigilant but non-imperial foreign policy that isn't a bad model for America going forward.
June 14, 2006 5:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
The post-humous judgement of the Kosovo war as "illegal but legitimate" is interesting. I may be wrong, but I think I recall Matt as expressing approval for that war. I wonder how he reconciles that with his opposition to intervention in Darfur. It seems the "Humanitarian intervention" case for war is much stronger in the case of Darfur than it was in Kosovo. And it was right in Kosovo.
June 15, 2006 5:37 AM | Reply | Permalink
"I think I recall Matt as expressing approval for that war. I wonder how he reconciles that with his opposition to intervention in Darfur."
I don't think Matt is worrying much about reconciling his views on military action these days.
He feels badly burned by the Iraqi misadventure, and will likely continue to be reflexively anti-force until at least January 2009.
Bill Clinton was able to drive many conservatives insane, and George W Bush has had the same effect on many liberals.
June 15, 2006 6:05 AM | Reply | Permalink
This is actually something that struck me early on, about the time the pre-emptive doctrine was splashed across the front page of the NYT when I, very upset at the possible coming horror, went in search of "blogs" on the internet. (Previously what I was addicted to on the internet was ebay and the like.)
Back in the olden pre-internet days, I was addicted to the Monica saga on cable TV. I used to watch C-Span's morning talk show when I could, and would sit with my jaw hanging open at some of the calls from the conservative lines, the frenzied irrational hatred and anger at Clinton, the paranoia, things like "that man, that man, that man is ruining our country!" accompanied with vocal sobs.
In my post-pre-emptive doctrine search for intelligent discussion about how this seemed to be exactly the wrong thing to do, I instead found lots of irrational, emotional ranting and hatred toward and paranoia of Bush, remarkably similar to the conservative rants against Clinton that I used to see on C-Span.
My main thoughts about that were that if this blogging thing gets more buzz, it's going to hurt the dem candidate for prez just like the conservative crazies caused Clinton to maintain a high approval rating....
so in the end, I guess it's not blogs, it's the people that make the most noise whatever the media... :-)
June 15, 2006 12:37 PM | Reply | Permalink