National Security Temptations Posted by Shadi Hamid

Some of you may recall Marc Grinberg's spirited run as a guest-blogger in November. Marc and I sparred quite a bit on questions of progressive strategy and the Dems' approach to foreign policy. These discussions (see here, here, and here) were productive, forcing us to reassess some of our original positions. Well, Marc and I decided to try to synthesize some of these ideas and come up with a more coherent argument. So we co-wrote a piece for TomPaine, published earlier this week, where we argue for a principled foreign policy approach that emphasizes sincerity over poll-tested notions of "strength," even if that means incurring political losses in the short-run. Here's an excerpt:

There are two national security temptations for Democrats in the new congress: a reflexively anti-Bush approach, and a reflexively "strong" approach—trying to out-tough the Republicans on security. Both must be rejected. Though based on political calculations, they are, in fact, bad politics. Neither is driven by an overarching set of principles, leaving Democrats looking like they stand for nothing.

According to supporters of the first approach, November's victory was a mandate for opposing the Bush agenda blow-for-blow. Thus, Democrats should respond with a strategy that is the antithesis of neo-conservatism — redeploying from Iraq, limiting American activism in the world and adopting a realist foreign policy outlook. But these Democrats have come to support a mishmash of policies that could hardly be described as liberal. A reflexively anti-Bush Democrat might oppose democracy promotion in the Middle East, arguing that that's what neoconservatives do. Others may claim that the internal politics of faraway nations should not be of concern to progressives —that we have enough problems at home to worry about. But it is precisely because we are progressives that we care about poverty and oppression abroad. As Martin Luther King, Jr. once noted, "injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere."

The second temptation—to prove Democratic toughness on national security—is based on the interpretation that November's win was more a response to Republican failures than a vote of confidence in Democrats. The public still does not trust liberals to keep them safe, and so the Democratic Party must promote only what will be perceived as strong national security positions, taking on Republicans from the right, and avoiding soft issues such as civil liberties.

Like the first tendency, this leaves Democrats with something that is neither a comprehensive strategy, nor recognizably liberal. Fear-mongering nativism, such as that displayed by certain congressional campaigns that ran against amnesty for illegals, or by the many Democrats who made political hay out of the Dubai-ports deal, is not the legacy the party should be striving for. Neither is silence on the Bush Administration's use of torture. If progressives don't feel confident enough to vigorously oppose something as self-evidently illiberal as torture, then why do we want to lead?

Read the whole thing here.

Comments

[Cayle]

Democrats are often labeled with the "feel good liberal" tag, but in this instance there is a tremendous need to support the world's poor. How about addressing national security through humanitarian means? Elminating global poverty is an effective tool for creating a safer and more secure homeland. According to the Borgen Project, helping these impoverished people to sustain themselves will eliminate the threat of "desperate people, in desperate situations."

[Cal]

Others may claim that the internal politics of faraway nations should not be of concern to progressives —that we have enough problems at home to worry about. But it is precisely because we are progressives that we care about poverty and oppression abroad. As Martin Luther King, Jr. once noted, "injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere."

In the first place, there are very few progressives who don't care about poverty and oppression abroad. That's a strawman. We just don't think the US should be using military force and covert operations to spread democracy.

Second, do you really want to be dragging Martin Luther King into this argument?

"A true revolution of values will lay hand on the world order and say of war, 'This way of settling differences is not just.' This business of burning human beings with napalm, of filling our nation's homes with orphans and widows.... cannot be reconciled with wisdom, justice, and love. A nation that continues year after year to spend more money on military defense than on programs of social uplift is approaching spiritual death.

-- MLK Jr., Rverside Church speech, April 1967

Are any of the posters here willing to cut the "defense" budget? Do any of you want to speak out against an attack on Iran? Or speak up for the 6 million stateless Palestinians who have no rights whatsoever?

No? Then please stop quoting MLK and talking about justice. It sounds insincere.

[Shadi Hamid]

Cal, you say:

"We just don't think the US should be using military force and covert operations to spread democracy."

I agree.

You say: "Are any of the posters here willing to cut the "defense" budget? Do any of you want to speak out against an attack on Iran? Or speak up for the 6 million stateless Palestinians who have no rights whatsoever?"

I - and i think everyone else on this site - opposes a military strike against Iran. See my article on this at http://www.tompaine.com/articles/2006/05/09/the_path_to_war_with_iran.php.

As for your 2nd point, I think all of the DA bloggers believe in the importance and necessity of granting the Palestinians their own independent state.

[Greg Sanders]

Nice article. If you do any follow up articles on this particular topic, you might want to throw in a few positive examples of cases where individuals have gone with this policy and document what it cost them in the short term and how they benefitted in the long term.

Also, how many compromises to you think the Dems make to achieve unity on this overall strategy? As you've pointed out in the past, there seems to be disagreements on principle within the Democratic caucus.

So is this advice aimed more at individual members of Congress (and Presidential candidates, but for now I think we should be focusing on Congress) or is it primarily advice to the leadership? At this level of detail, you can still do both but if you get more detailed in the future you may need to get into the guts of building a Congressional agenda.

[Replica Bottega Veneta bags]

So is this advice aimed more at individual members of Congress (and Presidential candidates, but for now I think we should be focusing on Congress) or is it primarily advice to the leadership? At this level of detail, you can still do both but if you get more detailed in the future you may need to get into the guts of building a Congressional agenda.

[Gucci replica Earings]

If you have a TypeKey or TypePad account, please Sign In

You are currently signed in as (nobody). Sign Out

[luxury watches]

I am so with you,rolex watch
luxury watch

[molded rubber products]

Plastic parts made by injection molding
printing in China
construction scaffolding

[cheap coach handbags]

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

[rado watches]

If you have PANERAI Watches , I still have my idea to achieve.