PPI vs. Kos, Part II Posted by Shadi Hamid

Ok, I'm genuinely confused my Moira's response to my initial post about the so-called "divide" between Kos and the DLC. Her main criticism is that I "distinguish [myself] from the progressive blogosphere and then associate [myself] with the DLC, while at the same time drawing yet a different line to sound national security ideas as being the independent unifier of both. In other words, national security issues are outside of partisan politics."

I think Moira and I are actually on the same page, but that she may have misunderstood my post. First of all, nowhere did I take sides and associate myself with the DLC in the context of this debate. All I said is that I think the DLC is doing some important work, followed by a "disclaimer" that I had just written a policy report for the DLC-affiliated PPI. But just as I "like" the DLC for certain reasons, I also said that I "like" the DailyKos community for certain reasons. Both "camps" bring important things to the table.

Nowhere was I buying into the idea of some internal civil war within the Democratic party. Rather, I was trying to argue precisely the opposite: that no civil war is necessary, because the DLC - at least when it comes to foreign policy - is trying to be "tough" on national security, while the Kossacks are trying to be "tough" tactically against the Republican party. These, in my view, can and should be complimentary roles. Both approaches, I think, allow us get some backbone, and stop surrending to the Republicans in the name of bipartisanship, or because we don't actually know what we believe in.

As liberals, there are certain things we believe in that we should never compromise on, regardless of short-term political gain. One of those things is civil liberties and the sanctity of the constitution and bill of rights. When congressional Democrats raised the white flag on the wiretapping bill last week, we betrayed our deepest principles as liberals. There is never any justification for compromising on the very things which define and animate who we are - our raison d'etre, if you will. I don't care if passing the wiretapping disaster was good politics, bad politics, or if it will help us win the 2008 elections. There are red lines, and we crossed them, by further eroding separation of powers and granting the executive branch further authority to do whatever it wants in the name of "security" and the "War on Terror" (uppercase). If the Democratic party is unwilling to take a stand on the basic issues of freedom and liberty; if we our unwilling to defend our constitution from Republican onslaught; if we are unwilling to do everything in our power to ban torture, then we might as well call it a day, and tell the American people that we Democrats believe in nothing, and that we stand for nothing.

Moira also criticizes me for implying that "national security issues are outside of partisan politics." I never said this, nor implied it. I think liberals/Democrats are the only ones who can effectively get us out of Iraq, support human rights and democracy abroad by reclaiming "democracy promotion" form the neo-cons, restore our moral leadership by banning torture and annulling parts of Patriot Act, fight international poverty, and, ultimately, win the war on terrorism (lowercase). I don't think Republicans can be counted on to do these things, and I don't buy into the idea of a bipartisan foreign policy elite that rises above politics, and can be counted on to do the right thing. 

With all that said, I will just close by saying that I do think there is a real divide within the Left, but it's not between the DLC and Kos; rather, it's between liberal interventionists and non-interventionists, or, let's say, between people who want a value-centric foreign policy, and those who want an interest-centric foreign policy. But that's a discussion for a different time, and I don't think its something that will threaten to tear us apart. After all, in the end, and in the meantime, interventionists, non-interventionists, and everyone in between, have a common goal - to defeat the Republicans, safeguard our constitution, and begin to rehabilitate our reputation abroad.

Comments

[Moira]

Regarding your other comments:
"Nowhere was I buying into some internal civil war within the Democratic party."
vs.
"I do think there is a real divide within the Left"

first, if you do or don't, I'd suggest you keep it off the public airwaves. Much the way my post did not discuss the issue you brought up, but rather the Foreign policy divide question.

Let me clarify again. I used your post as a launch pad rather than a direct critique. Sorry you took it that way.

I would disagree with you that "tough" is the cornerstone. I prefer...ahhh...correct, or maybe responsible. On the notion that all the blogs's primary benefit is tactic and the DLC should be (or even is) the agent to which we listen---I disagree strongly on both points, which I am happy to discuss...but not here.

[Dan Kervick]

Nowhere was I buying into the idea of some internal civil war within the Democratic party.

There is almost always an internal civil war within the Democratic party. This year is no different than most. Regrettably, there are only two major parties in the United States, yet there are far more than two significantly different political outlooks. Nor do those many outlooks fall into some natural partition into two groups.

[Eric Martin]

Rather, I was trying to argue precisely the opposite: that no civil war is necessary, because the DLC - at least when it comes to foreign policy - is trying to be "tough" on national security, while the Kossacks are trying to be "tough" tactically against the Republican party.

What a word to use here, "tough." What, exactly, would you say is "tough" about the DLC's foreign policy outlook?

The strength of a given policy lies in the results - not the associated body count, or amount of ordnance employed. The problem with this framing, Shadi, is that it implies the opposite - especially when used to describe the hawkish DLC. Supporting and enabling the Iraq war had nothing to do with "toughness." It was a heck of a lot "tougher" to oppose it, it took more courage and, in the end, it would have led to vastly superior outcomes. Results count. The rest is hollow bluster - which is anything but strong.

To use an example: a "tough" foreign policy thinker would have criticized Reagan's willingness to pursue nuclear arms control and other avenues with the USSR (and many did). The "strong" thing to do would have been to refuse Gorby's entreaties, and even stronger still, to attack the USSR instead. That would have been "tough" huh. And monumentally stupid.

We really need to get beyond the rather immature conception of strength and toughness whereby those terms are associated with the quickest trigger finger, and the most ready willingness to use force to solve the widest range of problems.

Belligerence is belligerence. Skip the euphemisms.