Ok, So I'm Not a Liberal? Posted by Shadi Hamid

A friend of mine, perhaps egged on by the fact that someone called me a neo-con a couple weeks ago, decides to encourage the rather questionable line of thinking that people like me are not real “liberals."

Here is an excerpt from an email he sent me a few days ago. Enjoy and digest: “Seriously, why do you consider yourself a liberal? I mean what do you believe that you view as distinctly liberal? It can be international or domestic policies. I am just curious.”

At least he is curious. Apparently, he does not read Democracy Arsenal regularly. I am tempted to engage in a spirited defense of my liberalness, but I will not. Doing so, I suspect, would only vindicate the reactionary tendencies of those who appear to increasingly populate liberal ranks, among them the Kossacks, the Chomsky cut-outs, the new neo-realists, the Scrowcroft avengers, the if-Bush-says-it, it-must-be-bad intellectuals, the I-love-Murtha clan, and other such factions. Well, that was a bit of name calling, wasn’t it? In all seriousness, I do not question the good intentions of each of these groups (except perhaps the Chomsky cut-outs), but I wonder exactly why they have let conservatives set the terms of foreign policy discourse for them. I feel a bit silly repeating the same points over and over, but speaking about democracy and doing so in moralistic terms does not make one a neo-conservative. If you think it does, then please explain why and defend your argument using real evidence.

To return to my friend’s question: what I consider to be my “distinctly liberal” positions on foreign policy are discussed in much greater detail here and here. Of course, these are the same two articles which got Doug Bandow, noble defender of the liberal tradition, to say:

[Hamid] might as well be working at the American Enterprise Institute, writing for The Weekly Standard, and advising the Bush administration.

So go figure. I guess you can’t please everyone.

Comments

[Dan Kervick]

Shadi,

I think you are unquestionably a liberal in one of the standard senses of the word. That's not saying much.

Why does it matter? We are all individuals. No two of us are alike and our individual political views and values are as unique as snowflakes. Using any of the common and conventional labels is just as likely to to be misleading in conversation as informative. I long ago despaired of finding some standard label in general currency that was clearly and distinctly associated with my own particular pattern of political attitudes. And whenever I use one of these labels in conversation, I experience a pang of intellectual guilt for allowing myself to slip into such cognitively lazy and slovenly habits.

One thing I don't mind calling myself is a "Democrat", because that label is based on more-or-less precise and verifiable criteria of application. I am registered as a Democrat; I vote for Democrats; I donate time and money to the Democrats. Thus I am a Democrat.

"Liberal", on the other hand, is one of the most useless words in existence, tied only with "conservative" and "progressive" for the honors. It is a handwaving gesture toward an indistinct direction.

Political activity and discourse can be dangerous to intellectual life. It inspires otherwise intelligent and discerning individuals into classification games played with the crudest and bluntest of linguistic tools. Why bother? The semantic contents of words like "liberal" are amorphous fusions of indistinct ideas, bundled together sloppily and varying indiosyncratically from user to user. To the extent people care about such labels, my sense is that their concern is more due to an emotional attachment to a verbal security blanket than any real substantive commitment to some content one can identify precisely; or else a vague but intense feeling of team loyalty, coupled with antipathy toward some opposing team.

[Don Bacon]

Shadi,
You sure sound like a neocon to me.

PNAC: 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.

SH: Democrats must make national security not just a top priority but the top priority. . .we will, today, wage a war on the twin perils of tyranny and terrorism; and we will not stop until we have won.

PNAC: We need to strengthen our ties to democratic allies and to challenge regimes hostile to our interests and values.

SH: The United States can, however, effectively pressure Arab governments to democratize by making economic and military aid conditional on a pre-established set of markers emphasizing freedom of expression, free elections, and the rights of opposition groups.

PNAC: We need to promote the cause of political and economic freedom abroad.

SH: A successful democracy promotion policy consists of more than just a statement of intent. It requires a sustained commitment, clear objectives, and detailed policy prescriptions tailored for each country’s particular needs and challenges.

PNAC: 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.

SH: Difficulties will remain impossible to address effectively as long as progressives continue to lack clarity and consensus regarding American power and primacy. The central question for progressives is whether we intend to be a country that relegates itself to traditional, interest-bound forms of diplomacy and ad-hoc international maneuvering or an interventionist state, with a set of strongly-held ideals and principles and a commitment to promoting them -- with care, but without apology.

http://www.newamericancentury.org/statementofprinciples.htm

[Shadi Hamid]

Yes, Don, if your point is that neo-cons and liberal "interventionists" agree on certain things, then you're right. That doesn't make liberals neo-cons. If anything, neo-cons were the ones who claimed our language as their own. I think this may be pointing out the obvious, but just because you don't like someone, doesn't mean that what they're saying is wrong. In other words, if x neo-con says: "democracy promotion is important," then it doesn't mean that x neo-con is wrong on that particular point.

[Ben P]

You know something that makes me laugh is that supposedly associating oneself with Brent Scowcroft on foreign policy matters is somehow a slur.

[Ben P]

"Yes, Don, if your point is that neo-cons and liberal "interventionists" agree on certain things, then you're right. That doesn't make liberals neo-cons. If anything, neo-cons were the ones who claimed our language as their own. I think this may be pointing out the obvious, but just because you don't like someone, doesn't mean that what they're saying is wrong. In other words, if x neo-con says: "democracy promotion is important," then it doesn't mean that x neo-con is wrong on that particular point."

What would you do different than, Shadi? And why do you expect it would get better results. Its lipstick on a pig and all that. The US is hated in the Middle East - more so than ever - and you don't think critically enough to understand why that is.

Basically t hat the US is trying to pursue three fundamentally incompatible goals: support for Israel, regional dominance and democratization. I would argue that in the foreseeable future, only one of these is achievable. And frankly, democratization will be the first to be thrown overboard. As the Bush administration has shown. And, Shadi, I'm sure you'd say this is a mistake. And I tend to agree with you. But I think you also have to recognize that the Democratic foreign policy is fundamentally committed to US regional dominance and a "special relationship" with Israel almost to the same extent the current gang are. You don't seem to recognize this.

Truly advocating democratization in the Middle East: ie really getting tough on Israel, cutting off funds and military aid to Egypt, Jordan, the Saudis and the Gulf states and allowing popular anti-Americans and/or Islamists to win elections is just not on the cards because what is most important to the US is its relative regional advantage, not abstract ideals. In this sense, US foreign policy is at its absolute core cold hard realpolitic, whether run by interventionist liberals or neocons or (gasp) realists. Your problem is you dont' seem to see this.

[J Thomas]

The problem here is that the meanings of the words are not well-defined.

When neocons say "promote democracy" they mean "kill people and blow things up". The way they word it causes some confusion.

When Shadi says "promote democracy" he means something that includes hard power and includes military intervention, but I tend to think his meaning is at least subtly different from the neocon meaning.

[Don Bacon]

Shadi,

You can see by the above examples that the PNAC credo and yours are very similar. Now as JT says perhaps they blow things up and you don't but that remains to be seen, and anyhow there are many forms of intervention. Your vision of the US state as "an interventionist state, with a set of strongly-held ideals and principles and a commitment to promoting them" doesn't inherently rule anything out.

It seems to me that a progressive/liberal would assume that a country can't be secure unless its citizens are secure. Real security starts at home, with our citizens and our environment. The US has the highest rates in the developed world of: incarceration, homicide, suicide, execution and infant mortality. The last is twice as high as Japan and triple Singapore's. A significant portion of our citizens have been excluded from the American dream because of their race, and many (including too many children) are excluded from proper health care. So we don't lack for domestic liberal targets. Let's apply your principles and commitment at home and then you can export them with a clear conscience and a greater acceptability by others..

In my opinion anyone calling him/herself a progressive/liberal would hew much closer to the vision of the Progressive Democrats of America than to your interventionist vision.

"We are specifically committed to the realization of new models for achieving local, national and global security that redirect the current wasteful and obscene levels of military spending toward the uncompromising and effective funding of: health and education programs; an end to discrimination; the provision of full and meaningful employment; and an end to poverty for all people."
http://pdamerica.org/policy/vision.php

[Dan Kervick]

But I think you also have to recognize that the Democratic foreign policy is fundamentally committed to US regional dominance and a "special relationship" with Israel almost to the same extent the current gang are. You don't seem to recognize this.

I think Shadi does recognize this Ben P. As I understand it, the Truman Project folks do not hide their support for continued US domination or "primacy" - not just in the Middle East, but in every other theater where the US currently hold sway. Preserving US dominance is seen as a necessary condition of spreading the American political and economic system around the world.

[Dan Kervick]

You know something that makes me laugh is that supposedly associating oneself with Brent Scowcroft on foreign policy matters is somehow a slur.

I know this is a bit off the topic, but this has puzzled me for a while now too. It's not that I don't know plenty of Democrats who just dislike Republican foreign policy apparatchiks on general principle. But usually the deep hatred is reserved for people like Kissinger and Rumsfeld. I can't recall meeting many for whom Brent Scowcroft, of all people, represented the epitome of foreign policy evil as he seems to for Shadi. Scowcroft has generally been seen as an internationalist who was close to the bipartisan center.

Scowcroft actually gave the country a fairly prescient warning back in 2002 about attacking Iraq - a warning that, if heeded, would have saved thousands of American and Iraqi lives. So I don't see why Shadi is entitled to such hostility toward Scowcroft, when it is many of his interventionist heroes who have the recent blood on their hands.

I suppose the Scowcroft hatred has something to do with Shadi's dislike of "interest-based" foreign policy. But I would like to know on what planet it is that countries do not by and large conduct their foreign policies to pursue their interests. There hasn't been a huge amount of historical difference, after all, between Democratic and Republican foreign policy.

[Ben P]

I think Shadi does recognize this Ben P. As I understand it, the Truman Project folks do not hide their support for continued US domination or "primacy" - not just in the Middle East, but in every other theater where the US currently hold sway. Preserving US dominance is seen as a necessary condition of spreading the American political and economic system around the world.

True, I don't know about him personally. But I would say this. It should be obvious by this point in time that the Middle East, Latin American, etc.. are not Europe and American dominance is not seen as liberatory (sorry for the awkward word) in a third world context. And true democratic outcomes would undermine this goal, at the very least in the short to medium term. Shadi's rhetoric never addresses this disconnect. This is what I'm pointing out: that right now, democratic outcomes in the Middle East are incompatible with other American foreign policy goals.