Can the "Dream Team" Reform its UN Mascot? Posted by Heather Hurlburt

Well, it sure isn't a foreign policy team that looks like America... but you're right, Derek, that's a fine bunch of diplomats who've proved their chops under Republicans and Democrats, good policies and bad.

I had a lot of respect for Colin Powell, Richard Armitage and Marc Grossman too, though, which brings up a point -- this ain't about personalities.  That's why I wonder whether the John-Bolton-has-three-heads strategy is really the right one.

From outside the Beltway, it looks like more politics-as-usual and personal attacks.  And it seems overwhelmingly likely to fail.  Progressives could have used the hearings as an occasion to get together around four or five big principles of how the US ought to be acting in the world -- ones that resonate with regular folks -- and then seek Bolton's pledge that he would act in accordance with them.

Those principles -- respect other nations' priorities if we want them to support ours; follow through on promises we make; live by the same rules we ask others to live by; etc. -- are ones that everybody gets, whether or not they are able to name all the members of the Security Council.  They are a critical tool in explaining why Bolton's views and actions are a hindrance to US foreign policy.  But they are bigger than he, or any nominee.  If the Administration doesn't yet understand that this is how things get done -- and stay done -- no dream team of senior staff is going to be able to help.  But if the Administration really did change its tune on the UN, Bolton's presence wouldn't be a problem... at least not for very long.   

Comments

[Cal]

Good post, Heather. Diplomats are important, but it's Bush and Cheney who determine policy, and they are the problem. I'm surprised to see so many Democrats play "if only the czar knew" on this one. Just this year the administration was caught lying about North Korea giving weapons to Libya.

Having said that, I don't think Bolton's pledge means very much. Look back over Bolton's 2001 hearings and you'll see that he seems to support the ABM treaty, the OPCW, and engagement with North Korea. Kerry accused him of having a "confirmation conversion," and the past 3 years shows how short-lived it was.

[Mark Lindeman]

Heather, I agree with your premise, but the strategy seems Not Quite Right -- or maybe I'm just too literal this morning. I like the part about progressives getting together on principles that ordinary people can understand, and "keeping our promises" and "playing by the same rules" are two excellent ones that the Bush admin has struggled with. The idea that progressives could enumerate four or five principles (the fourth is "etc." and the fifth is "TBD" ) and present them as a "pledge" for Bolton to take, and that would play better as a public education strategy outside the Beltway than pointing out that it's strange to pick a UN ambassador who hates the UN... you think? I think Americans have generally positive prior ideas about the UN, so the principles are pretty clear.

And yet, the priority work is really important, because one lesson of 2004 seems to be that if we criticize the Bush admin clearly but can't articulate an alternative that people understand, we lose badly.

"respect other nations' priorities if we want them to support ours" -- that "respect" seems too vague and wishy-washy, but something like this principle belongs near the top of the list. (And of course you wrote "respect" because we can't call for automatically _supporting_ other nations' priorities.) Something expressing the idea that when the U.S. needs to work with other countries, as it often does, it can't just dictate terms to them -- we need to, dare one say, meet them halfway? (Certainly not "compromise" or "split the difference." Sigh.) Such a good idea that Bush campaigned on it in the 2000 foreign policy debate.

I think one of the principles has to evoke American exceptionalism in a way that talks about U.S. responsibilities to the world. I don't know if progressives can agree on how to talk about that, and of course exceptionalism is dangerous. Hmm.... Maybe something along the lines of, "The U.S. will be measured not by its power or its wealth, but by the good it does in the world." (That's why the U.S. is spending all that money to fight AIDS in Africa, like the president said on TV.*) That language accommodates exceptionalism without mandating it. It also accommodates belief in God without mandating that (who does the measuring?). It isn't _uniquely_ progressive, but if it's in a Si Kahn song, I figure it has to count. ("It isn't what you have, it's what you do with what you've got.")

I wonder what we can do with "Don't be greedy" and "Don't be a bully" without getting ourselves into trouble. Pope John Paul II had a riff on "Violence never solves problems," but religious leaders and kindergarten teachers can get away with that kind of thing, hmm?

What else?

* Irony aside, I think this is one of Lakoff's best points in the _Elephant_ book (which is not one of his best books): that Orwellian rhetoric indicates weakness, not strength. Not that "Orwellian" is the best characterization of what Bush said about AIDS and Africa....

[hey]

not really sure what real change you can effect by opposing diplomatic nominees.

the admin is going to do what it wants, and it will have the type of people that it wants doing it. if opposing a nominee would bring someone independent and vastly different, I could see the point, though see janet reno as a counter example to that strategy (obviously from a vastly opposing POV to this site's)... sometimes the devil first proposed is better than the devil you get after throwing back lots of nominees.

fights over judges make sense, seeing as how its a long term appointment, fights over vastly unqualified individuals (like if jenna or chelsea had been appointed to be cabinet secretaries for their respective fathers) make sense. but these fights make no sense except in a fundraising way. no one at all cares, its a seriously useless way to make an impression as the next election is at least 18 months away. i can see the point of conservatives doing it solely to block action, but with dems in the minority????

also, given the very amazingly positive news coming out of the UN these days, the anti-bolton position isnt strong. a few ads wrt massive rape, child abuse, and corruption at the UN would put bolton's +s through the roof.

[G. Parkes]

Heather,

Am I right in thinking that the “four or five big principles” around which you recommend progressives unite (“-- respect other nations' priorities if we want them to support ours; follow through on promises we make; live by the same rules we ask others to live by; etc. – “) derive from the ones that Stephen Heintz, president of the Rockefeller Brothers Foundation, spelled out in his 2003 annual report? Actually, he listed six: “… —building strength through teamwork, focusing on the big picture, developing and using a full range of tools, thinking and planning ahead, promoting fair play, and putting our strength to great purpose.” Those concepts, he said, “reflect what has been best historically in the content, style and tone of America’s approach to its role in the world. As points of reference that measure the match between our actual conduct and our high standards, they can help citizens and leaders chart a responsible, results-oriented global course to a better, safer world.”

Spelling out a set of principles can be more than a high-minded rhetorical exercise if the value judgments can be linked to a list of international priorities. Although your blog is naturally reactive to current events, might it not serve as well as a forum for defining both threats (e.g., terror, proliferation, global warming, energy insecurity, deficit-related financing crunches) and opportunities (e.g., democracy building, anti-poverty cooperation, AIDS/malaria/TB-control, trade) to which to try to apply the “big” principles? The neo-cons did something of the sort with their June 1997 “statement of principles” specifying:
“• we need to increase defense spending significantly if we are to carry out our global responsibilities today and modernize our armed forces for the future;
“• we need to strengthen our ties to democratic allies and to challenge regimes hostile to our interests and values;
“• we need to promote the cause of political and economic freedom abroad;
“• we need to accept responsibility for America's unique role in preserving and extending an international order friendly to our security, our prosperity, and our principles.”

Considering where Elliott Abrams, Dick Cheney, Paula Dobriansky, I. Lewis Libby, Donald Rumsfeld and Paul Wolfowitz – among the signatories -- are today, there may even be some practical value in recruiting a progressive “dream team” to formulate a set of policy ideas that are both principled and practicable.

[wow gold]

I like to earn the World of Warcraft Gold very much, I want to have a lot of warcraft gold in the game, i do not satisfy the old equipment and so i have to buy wow gold to buy the new equipment to make me strong. If i am very strong in the game i can get some cheap wow gold as the rewards in the game. So i like the game very much.

[Atlantica online Gold]

I hope i can get Atlantica Gold in low price.

[eve isk]

If you have eve isk, you can get more. If you gave eve online isk to me, I still have my idea to achieve.

[age of conan gold]

I hope i can get aoc gold in low price,
Yesterday i bought conan gold for my friend.

[buy wonderland Gold]

I appriciate him. I prefer the
wonderland money in the game. In fact, the
buy wonderland Gold is expensive.

[injection moulding]

Newspaper by China printing is very good quality and good prices.
Plastic products made by plastic injection molding services with low costs and supeior quality
Shoring scaffolding for construction is a very useful tool.