From the oboe in the back row, still playing flat, now on the politics of the Concert of Democracy as well as the policy aspects --- metaphor starting to be a stretch, but figured I’d stick with it once more.

Jim and John and others have made good policy points in favor of the Concert of Democracies, but they don’t get me, at least, to net positive. But on this post I want to focus on the politics.

They and especially Rachel argue for the political value of the Concert as a big idea, an embodiment of interests and values that would resonate with voters and help give Democrats that definition and credibility still lacking on foreign policy. Along with Dan K and other bloggers, I don’t agree.

Where’s the evidence about the great political value of the democracy theme? Not in the public opinion polls which show strikingly low support levels for democracy promotion. Americans don’t see it as a priority, and they have real pragmatic doubts about its do-ability. It’s not something the public is against, but it’s also not something that’s high on their list either as a thematic that captures an overall foreign policy approach.

I couldn’t agree more that Democrats need to know what they’re for not just what they’re against, that anti-Bush Iraq policy was sufficient for the midterm congressional elections but will not be in the ’08 presidential context. This does have to be big picture, framing and even paradigmatic, not just a laundry list of issue positions. It has to show that Democrats understand what are the principal forces shaping today’s world, what key American interests and values are, and what is an overall strategy and approach for achieving them.

This doesn’t have to leave us with just classical cold-hearted realism: what goes on inside states does affect us in very significant ways, in this global era more than ever. But the “good governance” and “building capable states” themes raised earlier get more at what makes policy sense than democracy-democracy does and, with some massaging by political communicators, could work politically. Not yet ready to take this to prime time, but put it out there for our discussion.

And, yes, Jim, global warming too. This is moving from a niche issue to one that is a frame for broader issues – energy vulnerability causing both economic problems as well as terrorism vulnerability (Tom Friedman’s geo-green), the breaking out of the false zero sum dichotomy of green (environment) vs. green (economy), and values-based arguments about what we’ve been entrusted with and what we leave to our children.

Sure, as Rachel stresses, hope and optimism have to be coveyed and tapped. But it has to be with pragmatism and realism in its most generic sense.

This ain’t a full answer to the question “if not democracy stuff, then what?” It’s an effort worth working on here and otherwise.