Actual Strength -- Live-Blogging III Posted by Michael Signer

Ted Sorensen gets up to introduce Congressman Jim Leach of Iowa, and while Sorensen is physically shaky and a little slow to get up on the podium, his mind and speech are as sharp and steady as the podium itself. A couple of select lines from a short intro that has the audience rolling in the aisles.

"Don't worry about my vision -- I've got more than the President of the United States."

"There are more formers here than on a Jack Abramoff witness list."

And then Sorensen moves into a quieter, more contemplative section, talking about the need for insurgent, liberal, independent Republicans along the lines of John Norris of Nebraska (outlined by JFK in Profiles of Courage), and presented today by Leach -- who Sorensen says is basically the only example of a liberal Republican left in the House.

Leach, in his own quiet contemplative way, launches with a shy zinger -- that Iraq was perhaps the "greatest foreign policy blunder in the history of the United States."

The "Fourth Newtonian Law," he says (a heavy Gingrich pun), is that "Reaction is greater than action." If we're heavy-handed with policy in general -- aiming at shock and awe not only in the conduct of military engagements but also by framing policy as crusade-like, etc. -- we should not be surprised by asymmetrical responses.

He then takes a shot at neoconservatism -- they don't define exceptionalism as shining up the city on a hill, but rather removing America from any constraints at all. (I'm nodding my head vigorously because I have an article on "American exemplarism" coming out in the new journal Democracy where I argue exactly the same point).

Applying his Fourth Newtonian Law, Leach talks about Iran -- if we strike with nuclear-tipped weapons against Iran, would it eventually legitimate them using nuclear weapons in general against the United States and our allies? Does it make the more routine use of nukes more rather than less likely?

He's talking about a broader, longer timeframe for analysis and decision -- decades or centuries rather than months and years.

And on Iraq, Leach says we should give the democratization rationale for the conflict the greatest weight -- not as a rationale, though, but rather as a path for action. He says that if we stay much longer, and are forced to withdraw, the other side will say they forced us out. On the other hand, if we say that we established the necessary threshold elements of democracy, and draw down troops before our presence destabilizes the country further, then it's both a (relative) win for us, and increases the chances of democracy taking root.

I'm not saying I agree with this, I'm just relaying what Leach is arguing. But what I do agree with is the steady, thoughtful toughness he seems to be preaching. An outward confidence that draws from inner strength is the vision that drives Peter Beinart's new book and should ultimately be a part of whatever the next step is after the dialectical conflict between the current and former Administrations, in a post-9/11 world. After thesis and anthesis, there must be synthesis, right?

Talking about Hobbes, Leach concludes by questioning whether a final criterion for every decision we make should be advancing the rule of law. Is the realist attack on international constitutionalism (to coin a phrase?) itself realistic? We believe in law -- Americans always have. The expansion of law -- rules which all members of a society agree to follow, for the common good -- is an absolute good.

Comments

[seyid]

There are certain things in life related to smoking that simply cannot :)
parça kontör
parça kontör bayiliği
parça kontör bayilik

[cheap coach handbags]

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