WWHSTD? Posted by Heather Hurlburt

What would Harry S Truman do?

It’s interesting, with respect to the "Trumanite" worldview propounded by Michael and edited by Suzanne (and then Michael and then Suzanne), to ponder the position of the Republican party between 1936 and 1952. Why couldn’t they break the stranglehold of the class-traitor Roosevelt and the little haberdasher Truman on the presidency?

Because it was wartime, obviously. Because Roosevelt’s anti-poverty programs became immensely popular. What do those two factors translate into? ROOSEVELT, TRUMAN AND THEIR PARTY DEFINED THE WORLDVIEW THAT ALL AMERICA BOUGHT INTO.

The Republicans found themselves divided between those who rejected that worldview – and sounded like isolationist crazies – and those who tried to pass themselves off as an improved, smarter, lighter or harder version of it. Sound familiar?

Here’s the trick: it wasn’t by making themselves over in Roosevelt and Truman’s image that Republicans wrested the Presidency back. It was by taking control of the next emerging paradigm – the Cold War abroad, the “second return to normalcy” at home – that Eisenhower and the “Eisenhower Republicans” held sway.

What did Truman have to say about this?

If it's a choice between a genuine Republican, and a Republican in Democratic clothing, the people will choose the genuine article, every time.

I have some problems with Michael's principles, though not with his passion for them.  But more importantly, I think this particular lens is pointing us down the wrong road.  This lens is built directly around the Republican worldview that has dominated US politics since shortly after 9-11. 

The fundamental problem with this lens is that it is last year's lens, last election's lens, or even a just-before-the-Iraq-war lens.  It suggests that our problems are primarily military and confrontational in nature and can be solved with the tools of military confrontation first and foremost, if we have the guts to use them.

That's not the worldview that is going to allow Democrats to break through in White House, Congress and statehouse races.  To do that, we need a set of principles that focus on the next set of problems AND a way of presenting them that convinces Americans that progressives see the world the way it is and conservatives don't.  Otherwise, we've ceded the field of reality to conservatives -- a big mistake.

Progressive chest-thumping on exceptionalism, militarism and hegemonism is never going to be as impressive as full-throated conservative chest-thumping on those themes.  And with all due respect, saying that progressives want to help people and conservatives don't is a real loser.  Who doubled US assistance to Africa?  (W.)  Who broke the stigma around assistance to AIDS patients in Africa?  (evangelicals)

What about progressives' commitment to US economic leadership -- to freeing the innovative brilliance that made US companies and our workers' livelihoods second to none but is now threatened or in abeyance?

What about our passion for human dignity -- not helping people because we think it's nice, but because we really believe that "created equal" stuff, and because we know that denying people their dignity is the surest way to create resentment, violence, terror, etc.?  (See under:  defaced Korans.)

What about our love for the American way of life -- something we really did invent here -- that needs to be defended with smart energy policies, far-sighted institution-building, and clear-headed use of our military on the real challenges we face?

The US military is a tool -- US hegemony is also a tool.  The thing we need to communicate to Americans is what we want to use those tools to accomplish.  The point of a hammer is not that you're committed to using the hammer, but that you're committed to building the house.

And while I'm at it:

1)  American exceptionalism.  Michael, I'm not sure what ideas you're thinking of, but the foundations of much of the best of our ethics and beliefs comes from folks in the Middle East several millennia ago, who handed on to us our "Judeo-Christian heritage."  Democracy, civil and political rights, non-violent protest; none of those was exactly conceived in the U.S.A.  What I would argue the US does do terrifyingly well and bravely is to take constructs and implement them -- and improve on them by doing so.

Also on exceptionalism -- the public doesn't much like talk of exceptionalism.  Check out the polls on what Americans think of bringing democracy to the world.  You may also recall that W's campaign in '00, pre-9-11, called for a humble America.  Progressives "need" an answer on exceptionalism for right-wing talk radio, not for the voters.

2)  Military.  It's interesting to note that the gap in public opinon over "who do you trust to use force" closed as close as it ever has during the Kosovo conflict. 

3)  Hegemony.  We're not interested in hegemony for its own sake, just as progressives keep having to be reminded that we don't love the UN or international cooperation for its own sake, we embrace them as means to an end.  It's far from clear that classical hegemony is the most useful way of approaching a world in which the US can't fund the reconstruction of a medium-sized country alone; can't persuade a smallish country to change its ways without a dozen or more partners in economic and political boycott; and can't stop proliferation or terror attacks (never mind those usual suspects disease and global warming) without military, law enforcement and other cooperation from countries large and small. 

Comments

[Stygius]

I agree in part. The thing that will keep American exceptionalism and hegemony alive longest is to not make a big deal about it. Real American nationalism IS profoundly unique because it is so rooted in democratic individuality. American exceptionalism, by definition, is anti-Fascism. American identity and nationalism is unique precisely because it despises authoritarianism. But pointing to it and saying "Hurrah!" ruins the affect.

And while I agree one can't ever out-do Cheney when it comes to militarism and chest-thumping, that doesn't mean one turns around and becomes the anti-thesis. That just reinforces the original problem, rather than transcending it. One of the reasons the North Korea situation has gotten as bad as it has, and the Administration has been totally incapable of developing a policy, is because in 2001 the only ideologically POSSIBLE approach was to be anti-Clinton. What a foolish way to approach the world it was. It created an insoluble mess.

The Bush White House has donned militarism as a political logic. There is no way to compete with that. But there is something truly un-American about a militarist politics, and it is a real weakness -- especially when you are breaking your military in the process. At the same time, progressives need to be comfortable with military solutions to dangerous problems, with talking about it, and not hesitating to use it when events demand it. There is deep, deep doubt in the country as to whether Democrats can do so. Michael's points along these lines are especially fruitful.

Armed force as a part of a broader foreign policy and security praxis is necessary. This is different from militarism as a political ideology. We can reject one while embracing the other.

[Cal]

Great post Heather. But I think it's important to point out that the Dems never did find an answer to the "tougher than thou" problem. Kennedy ran to the right of Nixon on foreign policy, and even after Johnson's landslide victory he still felt the need to go into Vietnam so he wouldn't look weak.

Answering the terror-baiting charge is the most critical problem facing the Democrats, and there may not be an answer.

--"American exceptionalism, by definition, is anti-Fascism."-- Stygius

Couldn't disagree with you more, Stygius. Exceptionalism, by definition, is one of the defining traits of fascism. Nobody believes in American exceptionalism more than the Bush administration. This is what makes them thy feel they can imprison American citizens forever and still talk about freedom, and occupy foreign countries without being seen as occupiers.

[Stygius]

"Exceptionalism, by definition, is one of the defining traits of fascism."

Exceptionalism may be one of the "traits" of fascism, but that doesn't equate generic exceptionalism with fascism. Fascism has many traits, so your point doesn't follow.

"Nobody believes in American exceptionalism more than the Bush administration."

What does that even mean? As for George Bush, if you let the Administration define American identity, and get away with the doublespeak you criticize, then maybe your point holds. But it doesn't have to be that way. A little flag waving doesn't make you a narrow-minded, right-wing goon; time people on the left started figuring that out.

American exceptionalism is different because 'Americanness' and fascism are so blatantly at odds with each other. Fascism fetishizes some homogenous identity. But there is no 'one thing' that is American -- which is the pleasure of it, and the paradox of "American exceptionalism." Hence, a true American nationalist has very little resemblance to European fascists. Likewise, obnoxsiouly celebrating Americanness, especially in a "I'm better 'cause I'm 'Merican" destroys the whole idea, and is likewise totally nonsensical.

[JB (not John Bolton)]

I think that if I have to read one more comment about 'American Exceptionalism' I will scream.

Anyone who starts a discussion of U.S. foreign policy by basing it on the supposedly-self-evident fact of 'American Exceptionalism' is forgetting one thing: the rest of the world is tired of hearing it, especially after 4+ years of Bush and the cynical smugness of 'freedom is on the march'.

If the U.S. can't harness its very real advantages in energy (no, not oil) and pragmatism and 'can-do' to accomplish objectives abroad that are seen outside the U.S. to benefit others in addition to the U.S. then 'exceptionalism' will get us nowhere.

What we should be looking for is for the rest of the world to be viewing the U.S. as 'exceptional', not to have to say it ourselves.

One of my local supermarket chains has a tag line of 'world class' - wouldn't it be so much more effective if their customers went around saying that?

Domestically directed talk of 'exceptionalism' is like a mutual congratulation society and is nothing more than a different version of "because America is good whatever we do must be right".

[kjm]

All of the current polling indicates that Americans are not optimistic about a positive outcome in Iraq and that we are doubtful about George W. Bush’s ability to lead. However these same polls all show that the American people trust the Republicans more in the area of foreign policy than they do Democrats.

“Republicans enjoy significantly higher ratings on the key issue of national security; Democrats are seen as better able to repair America’s relationships abroad.”

Above quote is a key finding in this poll:
American Attitudes Toward National Security: Identifying American Attitudes

http://securitypeace.org/projects/american_attitudes.html
(Security and Peace Institute)

Recent polls indicate that Americans do trust Democrats more on the *bread and butter* issues described in this thread. In other words, we’ve won that battle. However our hurdle is the issue of national security and I don’t think we can overcome that by describing the areas currently perceived by Americans as Democrats’ strength. Progressives are still charged with describing under what conditions we ARE willing to use military force. We are currently defined by our reticence on this and this is reflected in the polls.

[Tjw]

There seems to be a real misunderstanding of American exceptionalism, not least because of Michael's account of what Truman Democrats mean by it. It does not mean that the US is "the greatest country the world has ever seen". It does mean that different rules and constraints apply to the United States in the international system. Why? A conservative reason is the "city on the hill", chest thumping patriotism, and a staunch defense of sovereignty. A liberal reason is that only the United States has the necessary combination of strength, values, and good fortune (i.e. geographical isolation) to underwrite international order. This confers unqiue capabilities and responsibilties meaning that the US will always act and require treatment that is a little bit special. It seems to me that rather than out-Cheney Cheney this is stronger ground on which TDs can build their house.

[rosignol]

If the U.S. can't harness its very real advantages in energy (no, not oil) and pragmatism and 'can-do' to accomplish objectives abroad that are seen outside the U.S. to benefit others in addition to the U.S. then 'exceptionalism' will get us nowhere.

-----

Why should the US be more willing to put it's resources to work for the benefit of others than others are to put their resources to work for the benefit of the US?

International relations is very much a quid pro quo arrangement... and if others don't see that one of the reasons the US is exceptional is because it's extremely powerful compared to every other nation on the planet, well, that's their mistake.

You don't treat the sole superpower like it was just another nation. This is basic.

[JB (not John Bolton)]

rosignol -

I agree wholeheartedly with your comment about 'international relations is very a quid pro quo arrangement'.

The trouble is that the U.S. is frequently perceived, not just as the 'sole' superpower but as a moralizing, overbearing superpower that thinks it has all the answers.

I believe there is a real analogy with 19th century Britain, which was convinced it was doing good in the world by conquering and 'civilizing' countries such as India.

[rosignol]

The trouble is that the U.S. is frequently perceived, not just as the 'sole' superpower but as a moralizing, overbearing superpower that thinks it has all the answers.

-----

Moralizing? Well, yeah. Overbearing? Sometimes, sure.

But a lot of the criticism of the US on those grounds kind of misses the point- there are worse things than being obnoxious.

[doc]

[Sorry for the late post; I’m not trying to get ‘the last word in’, just don’t always have a lot of time when initial subjects are posted…]

"- there are worse things than being obnoxious."

...you know what, to the man in the street you are dead wrong: there is only one thing worse than being obnoxious – condescension.

…and I don’t mean the US average man in the street – I mean it worldwide. often you can do no worse thing than to preach to someone continually…especially when you’re an obvious hypocrite.

[Sho Online Mun]

I know the game from my friends and first my friends give me a lot Sho Mun and after that i go to earn the Sho Online gold alone, i find that the Sho gold is very interesting and the i like to buy Sho Online gold alone very much. So i think if you join ue to play the game you will like the game too.

[rf gold]

I hope i can get rf online gold in low price.

[Archlord money]

When I have Archlord gold, I feel very pleased with life no one can understand you, but here you will find fun. When I have Archlord money, I experienced that feeling, that very warm feeling.

[Sho Online gold]

I hope i can get Sho Online Mun in low price,
Yesterday i bought Sho Mun for my friend.

[cheap requiem lant]

In fact, the
cheap requiem lant is expensive. I usually find
requiem online goldfrom the supplier.

[cheap shaiya gold]

you must borrow cheap shaiya gold from friends, or you can not go on this game without shaiya online gold.

[muhtar]

Thank you for your sharing.! seslichat seslisohbet

[cheap coach handbags]

Thank you for your sharing! I like i very much!

[xlarch]

en güzel rokettube videoları,
en muhteşem sex izleme sitesi
en kral rokettube yeri
kaliteli pornoların bulunduğu tek mekan
yabancı sitelerden özenle seçilmiş muhteşem ötesi rokettube sitesi...