Spin Cycle
Just a shout-out to two great posts. On Daily Kos, Susan G. makes the point that what the media spin calls the new "conservative Democratic" agenda is really the long-held progressive agenda: building alliances, voting against state-sanctioned torture, making wiretapping policy abide by the law.
And on TPM Cafe, Jeremy Rosner points out that Democrats have closed the national security gap in polls--long considered a Republican issue.
What do these posts have in common?
Both make the point that the old labels no longer cut it--conservative and liberal are old tags the media slaps on new bottles.
The right has long been heralded as stronger on national security--but their national security tradition is isolationism, and the more aggressive counterpart to isolationism is unilateralism--going it alone. That's the national security strategy we've seen in action the past 6 years, and it just doesn't work. Americans are finally waking up to that fact.
The left also has a long tradition of liberal internationalism--combining liberal beliefs like "torture is just plain wrong, all the time" and "a more just world with greater opportunity is more peaceful" with a foreign policy based on strong alliances that let us keep the peace together, whenever possible. Add on a "speak softly and carry a big stick--have a strong military that gives your diplomacy the weight it needs, so that we rarely need to actually deploy force-- and you have the national security strategy that won us two world wars, and set the stage to win the Cold War, under three different Democratic Presidents.
Now is the time to solidify these gains, and show America that the old national security story is wrong--Republican unilateral strategies have not kept us safe--they've weakened the country and created new enemies, from catalyzing the Iranian Revolution by supporting the old corrupt shah, to funding the Mujahadeen that has brought us today's radical Islam, to the current Iraq War.
Meanwhile, the left can remind America that every the successful wars America has been won in the 20th Century have been won under a Democrat. That even better, Democratic policies work to avoid war altogether--as in the Cuban Missile Crisis.
Republican presidents have had foreign policy success when they have followed the liberal internationalist approach--as when Nixon went to China, or Reagan negotiated with Gorbachev. When they follow the right wing's historical tradition, they have brought only weakness.
Call it blue, red, indigo or mauve--the left's way of doing national security is common sense, and it works. Now is the time to embrace that tradition, and tell a new story to the American people.
I am not sure what you see as a progressive foreign policy. Left or Right seems to have no real meaning when it comes to foreign policy. Pat Buchannan has more in common with many at TPMCafe than he does with William Kristol. Look at Dafur. many are calling for military force to save the people of Dafur. A number of people at the Cafe have told me it won't work and we must stand-by and watch genocide.
A globalist, economic based internationalist approach to foreign policy with a serious but restrained military force available for use is the tradition progressive internationalist and Democratic Party approach.
Unfortunately among progressives there is as much seling of fear as their is by Bush and the right. It is fear of Chinese and Indian workers, a fear of Israel's right to exist and a fear of offending the Arab Muslim world.
What would be break from the last three decades is leaders who are straight with the public and who are hopeful and who preach against fear.
Daniel A. Greenbaum
November 11, 2006 9:19 AM | Reply | Permalink
I think the American empire is in decline. We haven't "won" a major war since WWII. The changes that have happened in the world have happened in spite of us, not because of our foreign policy. We were totally clueless when the USSR collapsed and equally out to lunch when China transformed economically.
As we lose (or have lost) the ability to influence international affairs we become more desperate. We know how to blow things up, but we don't know how to get governments to cooperate with us, whether in South America or the Middle East.
Since we are no longer the "world's only superpower" (except in our ability to create havoc) we no longer can find a foreign policy which preserves that position. Just like the UK or Spain or any other former empire we need to realize that some things are no longer ours to command.
If we stopped trying to dominate the world by force we could redirect some of the military spending to improving our own infrastructure and competitiveness. As things are going now there is a good chance that in 30-50 years Asia and India will be a large enough trading area and won't need us either as a market for finished goods or as a place willing to manufacture stuff for us that is paid for with borrowed (from them) funds.
Becoming a former empire is never pleasant, but it is better to realize what is happening then to try to hold back the tide. It didn't work for King Canute and it won't work for us.
--- Policies not Politics
Daily Landscape
November 11, 2006 1:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
Rachel -
I too, was taken by Susan G's point. Well worth checking out.
November 11, 2006 4:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
Good point!
I was thinking about it this way:
Isn't it a hallucination to think that the United States can stay "the world's only superpower" and sustain this with a volunteer army? I'm not arguing for a draft here - I'm merely noting that there has been no willingness shown by most Americans to do what is required to sustain such a vision. So maybe we should listen to that instead of fighting it and start figuring out how to, as you put it, become a "former empire."
Another way to think about the same thing:
As I watched the Cold War coming to an end, I noted the eagerness of Republicans to claim credit for Ronald Reagan as the architect of this victory. I did not completely dismiss such claims, as many liberals did, and would concede that the Reagan era's military buildup might have been the straw that broke the camel's back, although it was wrong to give the Reaganites all the credit.
However, one thought I had at the time which has recently come back to me was that the United States had just won a global game of "Chicken". Chicken, for those who may not know, is a game that used to be played by two mad teenagers who would drive cars at one another at frightening rates of speed until the loser chickens out and turns. That the Soviet Union had collapsed but that the United States might not be that far behind them. Now, 15 years later, those thoughts rise to the surface once again.
November 11, 2006 4:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
rdf
Bush's arrongance has made dealign with the rest of the world more difficult. However, the United States has won all the important wars in the ways that count since WWII.
South Korea dominates its northern neighbor. North Koreans eat grass. Vietnam is joining the WTO, is condending with China as the low cost producer and in general has moved toward a capitalist economic system.
We do not have the mantle of heaven but there is no one organized against the United States. Instead much of the world waits for the United States to get back to the policy the virtually every United States President from Wilson to Clinton have advocated.
Daniel A. Greenbaum
November 12, 2006 8:32 AM | Reply | Permalink
The problem with even discussing a draft is that we as citizens have lost all influence over how such an army would be used. I won't give my children to a military that tortures, run by a demented egotist, used to enrich greedy politicians and their corporate sponsors, hiding behind the rhetoric of patriotism and security, abetted by a media that at best balances truth with lies, at worst buries truth with lies. What is to prevent that from happening again, or from becoming the norm in US foreign policy?
November 12, 2006 8:51 AM | Reply | Permalink
to wayitwas: Is it too much to ask you to read what I wrote?
Nonetheless, if you can take your fingers out of your ears long enough at the mere mention of the word "draft", you would see my point. It IS ludicrous to imagine that the United States could be the "world's only superpower" with a volunteer army, which led to the Bush Administration's ridiculous policies of driving a "war on terror" in which most Americans were asked to make no sacrifice other than to go shopping. This led straight to the politics of McCarthyite demonization of anyone who pointed out the absurdities of this stance.
HOWEVER
It is possible to hold the above thought and still not be arguing in favor of a draft. That is what I am doing. If the American people show no great desire to do what would be required to sustain an Empire, maybe the American elites should give up this no-win game and figure out, as many others in the world have, how to carry on without needing the fix of believing that they are the predominant world power.
November 12, 2006 9:49 AM | Reply | Permalink
No one organized against the United States, and still a society that appears quite energetic in its search for threats and enemies.
November 12, 2006 10:39 AM | Reply | Permalink
Seeing the draft discussed in the context of what sacrifices we are willing to make prompted me to make a point - unrelated to your post - about the need for confidence that the flag-waving goals claimed by the party in power coincide with the actual goals of US foreign policy. I understood that you were not arguing to reinstate the draft, stated clearly in your post, and should not have attached my comment- which addressed the question of a draft in a general way - as a reply to your comment.
I just wanted to interject that trust in motives and competency play a major role in determining whether citizens are willing to make sacrifices - especially of our children - to meet espoused foreign policy goals.
November 12, 2006 12:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
point noted and I don't disagree with it.
November 12, 2006 1:13 PM | Reply | Permalink