Dems, So Now What Do We Do?
OK, so we won the mid-term elections. Now what do we do? How about designing a Progressive Foreign Policy with some oomph to it?
For Congressional Democrats, 'what to do next' is the “6 in 06” agenda, which is pretty accessible, positive and basic (read plodding)-- that's 4 domestic priorities, and 2 national security ones – change course in Iraq, and implement the 9/11 Commission Report (plus minimum wage, health care, energy security and education). That still leaves a few things to do in international affairs. Like designing a compelling and sophisticated Progressive Foreign Policy.
The starting point should be criteria for what we mean by “progressive” and “effective”. I’ve written on the definitional stuff in earlier posts. Let me make a few other points.
We can usefully take a leaf from Sebastian Mallaby in a recent Washington Post column. Reporting that Robert Rubin has assembled a team for economic policy called the Hamilton initiative, (probably Alexander and not Lee Hamilton, tho’ maybe a ‘twofer’) Mallaby finds three criteria guiding their recent recommendations: does the proposal add to economic growth? Does it reduce inequality? Does it keep within budget constraints?
Sounds pretty straightforward to me. What do we have on the foreign policy side of the house to match those big three? So far, not much. “Stop doing bad things in, and to, Iraq,” is not an adequate guide. Needed is an encompassing statement of principle that re-frames the foreign policy debates on our own terms.
So here are a few criteria to start the ball rolling.
Numero Uno should be whether a major international initiative connects in some explicit way to our major domestic initiatives. If fairness and growth is our guidepost at home, so should it be abroad. Our foreign policy goals need to be consonant with our domestic ones, and we need the rhetoric to match. Clinton’s first term slogan, “It’s the economy, stupid”, also drove our international priorities, especially under the energetic and ambitious guidance of Commerce Secretary Ron Brown.
A second criteria – foreign policy design should begin with and reflect popular concerns on the part of Americans, and not with academic paradigms. That doesn’t seem so radical, yet it’s rarely done in the real world of campaigning and slogan mongering.
Third, remember the Princeton Project on National Security? It took its lumps recently from the foreign policy community, and few have leaped to its defense. But the study did propose a good way to think about policy proposals. In a review, I wrote that the report’s greatest contribution is to provide “useful criteria by which we can judge the quality of a new foreign policy framework for America. With the presidential elections looming ahead, we are seeing a steady stream of proposed approaches. But how do we compare and evaluate them? Without consistent, carefully-selected criteria to evaluate alternative foreign policy proposals, it is difficult to conduct a rational debate – why should the Princeton project be better than Brookings’ or the Republican party’s? According to the PPNS, a good foreign policy needs to be multidimensional, integrated, interest-based, based on hope not fear, concerned with domestic capacities and relevant to the information age."
That is a good start for what should guide an overall foreign framework. It’s a big step and a contribution that shouldn’t be minimized. But it doesn’t give us much guidance for selecting particular policy proposals toward particular countries facing particular challenges and opportunities. That’s not its purpose. And providing detailed ‘To Do’ lists is not what is needed at this point in a campaign for ideas. The framing statement, however, is essential.
Still, it’s probably a good idea to start reflecting on criteria to judge particular broadly gauged proposals and assigning priorities. So here are a few; take them or leave them.
“Does it help restore our relationships with countries and communities we’ve alienated over the past 8 years? Does it enhance American security? Does it take into account the democratic conditions and trends in the country? Will the policy enhance the capacity of multilateral institutions to work better? Does it restore American competitiveness?” I could go on, but won’t. You get the picture.
I recognize a danger here – Creeping List-itis, or inflammation of the Wish List.
Avoiding that debilitating disease (to which Democrats are especially susceptible) means reaching agreement on general principles. That takes us back to the compelling vision statement that defines our priorities and illustrates what we stand for. It illustrates our values, and states clearly what we won’t do. It differentiates us from Republicans. That’s the core of a Progressive Foreign Policy. On the contents of that core, more later.
OK, Gentle Reader, now back to you.
there is no hope. can YOU define fascism? This tide is bigger than the rest. Those with the real power will not give it up. Those who think bush and the republicans have any (real power) are.... mistaken.
November 15, 2006 7:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
"A second criteria – foreign policy design should begin with and reflect popular concerns on the part of Americans, and not with academic paradigms."
There are a number of recent polls suggesting that Fox News defines the popular concerns of many Americans. Foreign policy is a place that the Democratic Party should take responsibility for articulating and defining American concerns.
Along those lines, one would hope that we could articulate a less narcissistic foreign policy, one that takes into account those people and places that are foreign. This is not a mamby-pamby over sensitive approach. It is a sophisticated approach that recognizes our place within, and not on top of, a world political system. This is a position of strength that recognizes that our values, hard work and strengths can keep pace in the world with out resorting to violence and intimidation.
A despairingly large number of powerful democrats shrunk from the opportunity to reflect, much less lead, the voice of America. This wave of victories was not heralded by a large chorus of Democratic voices signing out for justice. It happened despite a well-measured reluctance.
November 15, 2006 8:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
Implementing the 9/11 Commission Report, raising the minimum wage and education are probably pretty doable...the others will be much more difficult.
Specifically Iraq.
It is pretty clear the Baker Group is contemplating a major Iraq Policy course shift...details to to come. The D's will hold the reins of power come January and now can call hearings and involve themselves in the process. I hope people like Senator Levin plan to make sure the D's ideas get forcefully put forward in the new congress.
What should be the specifics of a democratic policy? I think turning up the pressure on the Iraqi government to step up by setting specific benchmarks for our withdrawal, getting Iraq's neighbors more involved in the process and concentrate more on the terrorist organizations rather than targetting sovereign nations for "forced regime change"...
November 15, 2006 9:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
The problem, here, isn't "list-itis"; it's pointy headed academic theory-mongering.
Foreign policy is the sum of the actions of politicians -- in the United States, one politician -- acting to forestall "gathering threats" -- generally, crises inasmuch as politicians don't receive credit for solving non-critical problems; thus, they hardly ever do. So, "What is to be Done?"
Iraq: Withdraw to super bases in Anbar and give the Iraqis fair warning in order that those Iraqis who think their lives will become worse can leave the country or at least their mixed sect neighborhoods. Seven to ten years down the road the Iraqis will have sorted out their situation.
Iran: Keep them as economically isolated as possible. And keep reminding them we've got 50,000 troops in Anbar -- solely to protect the Ghabar oil fields, of course.
China: Give them NE Africa and use trade as carrot and stick to encourage them to act responsibly vis-a-vis North Korea, Iran, Taiwan, Sudan and Somalia.
Russia: Cede the Stans to Russia and let them argue it out with China.
Afghanistan: Get out except for special forces' bases used to gather South Asian intelligence. If you don't control the NW Frontier, what's the point of fighting in Afghanistan?
Korea: Get out of South Korea and encourage them to consider building the bomb if only to put China on notice that if it doesn't control North Korea, it will have another nuclear armed country on its border.
Japan: Same as above.
Israel: Tell the Israelis they've been around for 58 years, and it's time they were on their own. Point out it's not our problem they chose to live among a bunch of "crazy Arabs."
And that leaves the so-called War on Terror: Treat it as a police and intelligence matter and fund it fully -- here and abroad. But do it under law -- law which may have to be modified in some areas.
November 16, 2006 12:29 AM | Reply | Permalink
Two suggestions for the Dems:
1. Do oversight
2. Don't over-reach
The first is an immediate constitutional obligation on Congress, and a complete political no-brainer. With Bush's popularity in the tank, the GOP minority has no option but to stand alongside the Dems in carrying out this role... and present Bush with the kind of bipartisanship he least relishes.
The second is to recognize two things - first, that the President still has primary control on foreign policy, and it is not for Congress to present him with his priorities, much less grand ideas. Instead, and this links back to the oversight role, the Dems should be insisting on something that Bob Gates has advocated (and Larry Wilkerson and Paul O'Neil lambasted the Bushies as failing to carry out) - proper policy formulation and consultation:
The need to take a collegiate approach to policy formulation is not to ensure that inspired ideas our identified, it is often to ensure the worst mistakes are avoided.
The second issue is that because of Iraq, we have to rein in our ambitions anyway. Diplomatically, the aim in the short-term has to be the frankly unglamorous and sometimes humiliating task of rebuilding friendships, and clawing back some of our global clout, whilst coping with whatever path Iraq heads down.
I'm by no means the policy-wonk that contributed to the Princeton Project, for example, but I don't think we need look beyond the likes of Truman, Marshall and Eisenhower to rebuild our reputation.
Remembering their sage words...
From Truman: "You don't "prevent" anything by war, except peace."
Marshall: [on the Marshall Plan] "Its purpose should be the revival of a working economy in the world so as to permit the the emergence of political and social conditions in which free institutions can exist."
Also, that we should oppose "the tragic misunderstanding that a security policy is a war policy".
And Ike: "No nation's security and well-being can be lastingly achieved in isolation but only in effective co-operation with fellow nations."
And, this is a bulls-eye, "We cannot consider that the armed invasion and occupation of another country are peaceful means or proper means to achieve justice and conformity with international law."
Ultimately, though, I'm encouraged by another less obvious source - which I've quoted here before. Hunter S Thompson never had much love for Bill Clinton, and he best summarized his feelings in a passage where he explained that Nixon was such a bastard, and his henchmen such incorrigible goons, that they would inevitably drive good people into politics. The fear with Clinton, and his peculiar vices, was that he would drive all but the worst people out of politics.
Looking at what happened last week, I can't help but thinking Bush is the new Nixon. Some of the new Dem candidates are amongst the best people we could want representing us. Take Jim Webb, an impeccably credentialled candidate for public service, but someone who could quite comfortably have disappeared into the twilight of his life and allowed the political slimefest pass him by. But no, he went and took on the meanest political machine in history, and scored a direct hit for decency and common sense. And not satisfied with holding a foreign-policy sanity card, he follows up with an op-ed in the WSJ yesterday that should have thrown ice water on any suggestion he'll settle in quietly as a corporate bagman.
In short, the Dems' job right now is to play it safe. Keep Bush in check, presumably by putting Cheney on the shortest leash in DC. If Bush brings troops home, take credit for effecting that. If he doesn't, take another dump on the GOP in 2008.
The platform is there. The wise men of the WW2 generation have provided the template, and the Dems can cement a congressional majority by not screwing up in the next couple of years. Isn't that a good enough plan?
November 16, 2006 4:31 AM | Reply | Permalink
...turning up the pressure on the Iraqi government to step up...
I don't mean to be critical, but what does "turning up the pressure" mean in practice? What specific carrots and sticks haven't we tried that are realistically available?
It seems to me that by depending on the current Iraqi government to do anything as a precondition for U.S. actions makes American foreign policy a hostage to the very people who demonstrably can't get their act together.
I'll shut up now.
November 16, 2006 4:34 AM | Reply | Permalink
I see no beef.
Max B. Sawicky
http://maxspeak.org/mt
max@maxspeak.org
November 16, 2006 7:49 AM | Reply | Permalink
An obvious question with an equally obvious answer.
Impeach the liar who has caused so many to die.
Bush is the CEO president. We should treat him like the faied CEO that he is.
How hard is that?
November 16, 2006 8:35 AM | Reply | Permalink
One thing we better not do is sit around like potted plants while the push is on for 20,000 more troops in Iraq, so Bush makes another deluded attempt at "victory". See today's London Guardian.
Tom
November 16, 2006 9:06 AM | Reply | Permalink
What pressure can we bring to bear? Well the fact that the current Iraqi government needs our military support to stay in power. That gives us some serious pull...
November 16, 2006 9:40 AM | Reply | Permalink
You could get Ben Nelson in a small room and tell him that if he votes with Bush again that you're going to kick his a**. That's a start. Same with Liebermann.
You could also find out why Diane Feinstein has a 17 million dollar house on her salary. Oops, it's because her husband has the Iraqi power grid contract. Conflict of interest?
I'm sure there were people in the Kremlin running around shouting "we can't just pull out". Their country is gone. Are we far behind?
November 16, 2006 10:13 AM | Reply | Permalink
The general testifying about troop levels got supremely respectful coverage, but it's interesting to think about what he actually said. When McCain pressed him about pushing hard for more troops, he disagreed. When Democratic proposals to reduce troop levels came up, he complained. He also didn't much care for how things are going. He gave us four to six months, max, to get it right, but it sounds more like a study in denial and hopelessness.
It also suggests another reason that pleas for a grand strategy seem so irrelevant, making a debate over whether liberal policy derives from a Rawlsian compact, a communitarian ethics, or optimal consequences for the many seem downright nitty-gritty by comparison. At least with domestic policy, we know perfectly well what to do, and we have a big agenda to do it, from taxes, regulation, and infrastructure to the environment and health care. If we want to argue what all that means in the abstract, fine.
In foreign policy, it always seems to be the people with grand ideas, whether realist or idealist, who have major policy goals they want to justify, generally military ones. When they can solve a mess like Bush made in Iraq, maybe then I'll listen.
I have a vision of the world that includes the respect of other nations, the security of America, peace in the Middle East, humanitarian aid in nations suffering AIDS and malaria, human rights in China, and so on, and I think our country can be a leader in all this. The problem for these visionaries is that it's not a vision of American power, and it doesn't have a handy enemy like the previous times we've wanted such a vision. To them, I say tough luck.
John
http://www.haberarts.com/
November 16, 2006 10:23 AM | Reply | Permalink
It's too sad to contemplate the future of the foreign policy of the United States.
I no longer believe we have any politician in this country, or the world for that matter, with the moral fortitude to ask people to make the sacrifices necessary to change.
Idealism is no longer a virtue, it's considered a character flaw, a foolishness, a tool to exploit the gullible and the trusting and an instrument of ridicule for those who think that life is about competition not cooperation.
I knew nothing would change when on the day after September 11th, the President of the United States, standing on the dead bodies of Americans and shouting through a megaphone declared that we would get even with those who did this. Instead of howling a promise of revenge he had promised that the cycle of violence and revenge must end, and while we can't control the actions of others, we can control our own - that from this day forward, we will no longer support overtly or covertly any government on either side of the political spectrum which doesn't repudiate the cruelty and greed and unfairness that led to this kind of violence. That while the United States has every right and obligation to protect itself from these acts of violence, we are a people of law, that the fairness and equal application of the law is the moral foundation of everything we believe in and everything we will do in the future. That as a people we can no longer ignore the palpable anger and resentment caused by the greedy who perpetuate and propagate weapons of death for nothing other than profit.
That we can no longer live as a planet of pirates, who take what we want when we want it with no thought to the future health and wealth of the world and its people. That we hold our principles in such high regard, that our deeds in the world, both active and reactive will be guided by our deeply held idealistic conviction that all people are entitled to equality, justice and
fairness and though we recognize that people are imperfect, that they do bad things, that greed often gets the best of us, it is our duty and our need as human beings that we strive to meet our ideals.
But cynicism prevails, and idealists dare not speak.
November 17, 2006 11:55 AM | Reply | Permalink
Maybe the Democratic Party has one major chance.
I believe the Public Opinion is Alpha and Omega:
By attempting to educate the public, by doing this respectfully, by opposing and revealing manipulation of the Public Opinion, an by deliberate attempts to pursue or support policies that has a broad popular support, the Democratic Party may regain the respect that has been eroded for many decades, partly due to attacks by political enemies.
One important aspect of resonance between popular will and actual policies is greater legitimacy, but another, at least as important, is inertia in foreign policies, that also contributes to international stability.
That would also enhance America's standing in the world.
And, of course, it would enhance the Democrats' chances of success in future elections.
November 17, 2006 6:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
Just a few points. "Manipulation of the Public Opinion" is usually refered to by its proponents as "leadership" and it can cut many directions. And following the path of least resistence through public opinion while possibly delivering office is, at least in the long run, unlikely to garner much "respect".
That's not to say that it doesn't have its place. The miracle of democracy is that when an ideology becomes particularly counter to popular will you get something akin to '06 midterm election results. This kind of thing ideally restrains tyranny. A good politician knows how to balance his ideology with the public will so that he can placate his constituency and still get them to eat their spinach. This also brings up the importance of charisma (especially as government becomes more transparent), something the Democratic party lacks in droves. With the events of 9/11 the Administration was able to compensate for any charismatic and practical failings with raw fear. I don't think the new Congress can or should attempt to use such a mechanism. Fortunately the balance is returning, but it will keep policy projects modest and difficult.
Perhaps I'm a little out of the loop on industry terms. By "inertia" are you suggesting a consistency in foreign policy such as, oh I don't know, honoring treaty obligations? The best way to describe in three words or less the concept of inertia in physics would be something like, "Stay the course." (An object remains steady in it's trajectory unless acted upon by another force). I think that there are a few spots in our foreign policy where inertia might be viewed as a bad thing, at least as their current trajectory is accounted. But I don't discount what I think is your underlying premise that being all over the map from one administration to the next might leave much of the world slightly nervous and less committal to the foreign policy directions that Americans by-and-large would like to see from others.
Of course I could be misreading you. I've been known to do that. I certainly agree with you that the public needs to be treated with respect.
November 18, 2006 1:25 AM | Reply | Permalink
The first thing Democrats, including Congress Members, need to concentrate on in order to improve foreign policy is to control the office through which foreign policy functions in 2008. Until such a time Democratic legislators will be limited to oversight hearings, funding brinksmanship and Sunday morning talk show appearances as methods for controlling foreign policy and will be at a great disadvantage working against the wishes of the White House.
Not to be completely despairing; right now the American popular mood is behind restraint and the Democrats are currently representative of the concept of restraint (Although if the elections are a proper indicator, the electoral momentum is slight and fragile). The country wants a radical change in course in Iraq and will probably help the Democrats in Congress force the White House’s hand if the Democrats can stay together (not all Democrats agree on the direction to take place in Iraq) and not be successfully painted as anti-military or anti-American. As for foreign relations issues outside of Iraq I find it unlikely that the American electorate will back the Democrats sufficiently to force the White House into anything. A clear majority of Americans don’t agree or care about other foreign policy issues, at least not enough to give Congress political authority in what by design is part of the Executive bailiwick.
So from a practical aspect Democrats should be focusing on regaining the White House and maintaining control of Congress in 2008. From there foreign policy changes can be effected for two years until the country decides that they don’t like a Democratic trifecta either. My advice to Democrats is to conduct hearings into foreign policy abuses and negligence but to maintain a very respectful tone and to pay keen attention to public opinion with a willingness to hold back if hearings begin to be viewed as vengeful. Of course, there is a certain amorality to this approach and it risks turning off the true believers which could bring about the ultimate threat: a liberal third-party candidate.
As for an appropriate foreign policy platform for Democrats, the “criteria” that you credited to the Hamilton Project make a good logical starting litmus test. Although in the long run I’m not sure that I’m as keen on a growth requirement (one of these days we’ll have to figure out how to get the economy to feed us rather than the reverse). So what policies fit these tests, and perhaps others (Does it refrain from dragging our collective name through diplomatic mud? Does it incite another nation or entity to acts of brinksmanship or war?)? And if a policy maxes out one criterium does it have license on another?
Many of my pet policy ideas are anathema to this readership and most of the others are anathema to somebody (I like to think big). And it may not be a good idea to start laying out targets (mind the double entendre) just yet anyway, even for those with more moderate aims. Perhaps that is why you suggested that “providing detailed ‘To Do’ lists is not what is needed at this point in a campaign for ideas. The framing statement, however, is essential.” To argue against that though, we seem to have a lot more frames than pictures. That may come back to bite us in the end. (I think I'm using far too many parenthetical phrases.How about you?).
November 18, 2006 1:40 AM | Reply | Permalink
JM and Alan raise good points about a new level of engagement with the public on foreign affairs. It is essential. It's a way to regain trust and demonstrate that the opposition knows what they're talking about, and as importantly, that they listen.
There is a core of public opinion that forms the basis for what we should do, but as AF says, leadership is essential too. Since 2001 we have seen how much unchecked lattitude the public will give to leadership in foreign affairs...
My concern is that those of us attracted into foreign affairs as a discipline tend to be stand-off'ish toward popular engagement. Some will agree in principle there should be more engagement with the public, but few will act. And more than a few show a shiver of unfamiliarity if not unease when talk turns to a lot of democracy in the hushed halls of national security and diplomacy.
November 18, 2006 8:47 AM | Reply | Permalink
Don't be sad nor cynical.
Be thankful, for constitutional government and democratic capitalism, the framework of liberty and law that has made these United States the freest, most prosperous, most open, most generous, most decent, and most powerful nation the world has ever seen.
Be thankful, for a stable, competitive, mutually respectful two-party system that forces consensus toward the center and fairly registers the people’s choice, so the trustees of power can be turned out when they lose touch or break faith – and the reins of authority can then be peacefully transferred.
November 18, 2006 6:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
"Leadership" is one of those numerous concepts that doesn't travel well over the Atlantic (or maybe it's the Channel that makes the difference, I don't know).
Maybe, if I get the right mood some day, I'll try to write about this conceptual minefield.
November 20, 2006 1:00 AM | Reply | Permalink
Keep the eye on the future!
There is absolutely no reason to get emotional and going for retribution or revenge.
America needs a responsibly acting "opposition", though in fact already the majority in both chambers of Congress, that is well prepared to take over in 2009.
Oversight, yes definitely.
Hearings, yes, oh, please!
Impeachments, maybe so - but for the right reasons: To uphold America's Constitution and her standing as a nation of Liberty against tyranny.
Any foreign policy, regardless of if it's progressive or something else, that's disconnected from the Public Opinion, and especially that's not alloyed with a profound public feeling of National Interest, is bound to be whimsical and transient. The important point is not what the Democrats do with their formal power according to the Constitution. That formal power may be gone in two years. Crucially important is if the Democrats are able to move and persuade the public.
If the electorate isn't interested in foreign countries, the government oughtn't be either.
If Americans think the Geneva Conventions are silly, accept that as a fact, or take the debate with the public!
If the voters in fact despise the United Nations and NATO allies, then show respect for the majority's inclination! Prepare for withdrawing from these organizations as soon as it's in the power of the Democrat Party. Just stopping paying membership fees or pissing the allies off is whimpy. Real men stand for their view and leave.
But throw light on these issues! Question if the Republicans' policies really are inte the interest of America!
November 21, 2006 4:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
The comeback of habeas corpus protections is high on my list and heartening news appears in today's edition of The Hill:
Revving up for a pivotal clash with the Bush administration and Congress Republicans, key Senate Democrats plan to overhaul the newly minted legislation governing military tribunals of detainees.
Chris Dodd introduced legislation today that would amend the existing law. Senator Dodd said he’s expecting the legislation to be taken up early next year.
"The bill goes back and undoes what was done," Dodd told The Hill. Dodd was one of the top critics of the military tribunal bill the GOP hashed out with the White House and was signed into law last month.
Dodd’s bill seeks to give habeas corpus protections to military detainees; bar information that was gained through coercion from being used in trials and empower military judges to exclude hearsay evidence they deem to be unreliable. Dodd’s bill also narrows the definition of "unlawful enemy combatant" to individuals who directly participate in hostilities against the United States who are not lawful combatants. The legislation would also authorize the U.S. Court of Appeals for the armed forces to review decisions made by the military commissions. Moreover, Dodd seeks to have an expedited judicial review of the new law to determine the constitutionality of its provisions.
Dodd is the first Democrat to take aim at the controversial military tribunals bill. But Patrick Leahy, the incoming Senate Judiciary Committee chairman, also said that he is in the process of drafting "major changes" to the legislation.
November 22, 2006 7:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
You didn't really understand what BevD said.
NeoLotus
********
- Making judgements without intellectual justification is prejudice.
- We do not act rightly because we have virture, we have virtue because we act rightly.
- To know a truth well, one must have fought it out.
November 26, 2006 11:04 AM | Reply | Permalink