 |
We've relaunched Democracy Arsenal on a new platform, and made some tweaks to the layout and design of the site (with a few more still to come). If the site looks screwy, please hit refresh and then update your bookmarks with the new site. Let us know if you like the changes, and if you have any problems reloading the site.
This will be a short post, as it's late and I'm just off the plane in California and still three hours ahead of time. I'll have lots more to report after attending a 3 day workshop on marketing progressive ideas--sponsored by an organization in Silicon Valley called the Commonweal Institute. All the workshop themes have a global angle--though straight up national security is not one of them. This will be my hobby horse throughout the workshop. In any case, I'll have some interesting follow-up for Gordon's posts about liberals and national security.
Two polls to peruse:
the World Public Opinion poll on What the Iraqi Public Wants
a Zogby poll taken of US military deployed to Iraq
President Bush campaigned into office six years ago pledging that he would emphasize America’s relationship with the “great powers,” and by and large he has kept his promise, even after the 9/11 attacks focused attention on threats from what us wonks call “non state actors.” Like many policy pledges, this has been a mixed bag – as illustrated by the dueling opportunities and challenges posed by two key powers, India and Russia.
On the positive side, this week draws attention to what is perhaps one of the best stories of Bush’s presidency, the strong American relationship with India. The President’s trip there starting tomorrow – which has received surprisingly little coverage so far -- will be the first since President Clinton’s visit in March 2000, which itself was the first trip since Jimmy Carter went in the 1970s (a very good curtain-raiser can be found here). Some thought that this might not happen; a trip to India also means a trip to its neighbor, Pakistan, which the Secret Service is never happy about and some believed would never approve, especially since 9/11. When Clinton went he did not fly in on Air Force One but instead on a smaller executive jet, which flew in with another as a decoy in case anyone tried to shoot it down – which did not make it a pleasant journey for the staffers riding in the decoy. I’m not sure how Bush is getting to Pakistan, but my guess is much the same way.
Bush deserves credit for the way he has handled India -- which is, after all, the world’s largest democracy and third largest Muslim population – and the Bush team is mighty proud of the relationship’s solid footing. Pundits like Jim Hoagland are probably right that the trip could be the “foreign policy highpoint for his second term.” But while few Bushies want to admit it, this also it represents a good case of bipartisan continuity.
Continue reading "Great Power Politics: India's ying and Russia's yang" »
On the Francis Fukuyama New York Times Magazine piece about the crack-up of neoconservatism: if you haven't read it, do. It's significant equally as an analysis of the structural flaws in modern neoconservatism (which must be distinguished, as Fukuyama argues, from original neoconservatism) and as a political event in its own right -- a more-than-public (indeed, it reads more as a cry for help) manifestation of Fukuyama's own pronouncement that the "neoconservative moment seems to have passed."
I talked with Fukuyama at a wedding a year and a half ago, and was struck then by his anguish at the Administration's failure adequately to understand and plan for the insurgency. What I want to talk about here is whether Fukuyama has erred in devising an overly complex conceptual apparatus (as political theorists sometimes do) that diagnoses as an ideological mistake what is actually an intellectual problem. Fukuyama makes these mistakes because, in trying to move away from neoconservatism, he cannot release himself from its most basic premise -- that history stems from ideas, and that the perfect idea will solve all problems.
All of this is ironic because Fukuyama seems to have embraced the basic liberal notion of America's careful, thoughtful governance of a liberalizing world community. If he could release from the neocon framework, he just might emerge (probably to his own dismay) as a progressive.
Anyone who has tuned in to the discussion about politics and foreign policy here in Washington knows that things tend to circle back to a couple basic questions: when will progressives get their act together, and how will the Democrats overcome their perceived weaknesses in national security? Obviously we welcome this debate -- one of the reasons for establishing this blog was to create a place for such discussions to play out. Yet while there is certainly plenty of reason for more soul-searching on the progressive side (don’t worry, DA ain’t going anywhere), folks are starting to notice something equally interesting and consequential: the fissures in the conservative movement.
We're seeing this in the debate about the NSA domestic surveillance program, the torture and detainee issue, what to do about Iraq and Iran, and how (and even whether) the U.S. should work to promote democracy abroad.
It’s not just progressives who are grappling with how to respond to a Bush Doctrine that stresses democracy promotion, pre-emption, and unchecked executive power; the conservatives are divided too – and this internal struggle will only grow more intense and bitter as the 2008 election approaches.
As the New Republic’s Josh Kurlantzick explained recently in must-read cover story, “for four years after the Bush Doctrine's inception, the GOP had maintained impressive intraparty unity on foreign policy, uniting Christian social conservatives, neoconservatives, traditional realists, and libertarian-minded business Republicans. This was the result of many factors, including Bush's immense personal popularity, a rally-round-the-flag effect from the war on terrorism, the predominance of Iraq over all other foreign policy issues, and the fact that moderates in the Bush administration, such as Colin Powell, were marginalized within the bureaucracy.”
“But, now, other schools of foreign policy thought are emerging within the GOP… Pragmatic Republicans have realized that the Bush Doctrine cannot be easily applied to other foreign policy crises, such as Iran, and potential 2008 presidential candidates have begun thinking through their foreign policy positions.”
Kurlantzick argues that conservatives are dividing into three camps: transformationalists, like Condoleezza Rice, who embrace the Bush Doctrine’s ambitions but value alliances; nationalists, like George Allen, who have less patience for multilateralism and stress more traditional state-centered threats, like a rising China; and traditional realists, who articulate the kind of pragmatic, less-ambitious, “humble” policy along the lines of what Bush entered office espousing.
If you're interested in a little light reading on Jack Abramoff's prior career as a Hollywood producer (as well as a shameless plug for a non-Democracy Arsenal piece by yours truly), please check out this American Prospect Online piece I recently co-authored with my colleage Ryan Chiachere... hope you find it amusing, unsettling, or both.
Bush referred a half-dozen times tonight to the dangers of an American retreat to isolationism. He's adopting a strategy of trying to paint his critics as favoring a retreat to inward-looking policies and a renunciation of America's role in the world.
This is pure hogwash:
- Bush's Critics are Overwhelmingly Internationalists, Not Isolationists - As Charles Krauthammer wrote in 2004: " Isolationism is an important school of thought historically, but not today. . . Classical isolationism is not just intellectually obsolete; it is politically bankrupt as well. Four years ago, its most public advocate, Pat Buchanan, ran for president of the United States, and carried Palm Beach. By accident." The most outspoken opponents of the Bush Administration's foreign policy are, on the contrary, committed to multilateralism, to international development, and to global institutions.
- In his 2000 campaign, Bush skated near an isolationist platform - Though Bush professed opposition to isolationism, it was Condi Rice, not her democratic counterparts, who argued in 2000 that the US should not do nation-building and should not be a police force for the world. He thought the scope of the Clinton Administration's international involvements - many of which revolved around replacing dictators and building democracy in places like Bosnia and Haiti - was too broad.
- For Nearly a Century, Isolationism has been a Republican, not a Democratic Platform - Pat Buchanan had a long string of predecessors. This article details the history of Republican isolationism - and Democratic internationalism - dating back to the 1930s and going up to the Clinton and Bush Administrations.
- Flashes of Isolationism are Linked Directly to Bush's Own Policies - To the extent that ordinary Americans are tilting toward isolationism, polls show that such attitudes are linked directly to Bush Administration policies in Iraq. If it surges, the isolationism Bush rightly dreads will have been born of his own misguided policies, his breach of the public trust, and the strain he has put on the military.
In referencing tools our homeland defenders needs he wants reauthorization of the Patriot Act. But what about resources? training? equipment?
He's onto the wiretaps. Previous presidents have used same authority - yes, but that was before Congress made doing so illegal.
The famous line: "if there are people in our country talking to al Qaeda, we want to know about it." Well, a judge would want to know about it too, so she would authorize a wiretap and make it legal.
Also, if there are ordinary, law-abiding people in our country talking to relatives, friends and colleagues overseas, we don't want them to have to worry about the government knowing about it. These imperatives need to be balanced.
Back to isolationism again - I hope the folks at the Progress Report are compiling a detailed manifesto about just how false that charge is.
He's onto the economy.
American economy is strong, but we cannot afford to be complacent. He references China and India, which is good. Decries protectionism which is good. Nothing yet on how to manage free trade. Says the country could not function without immigrants. Agree.
Raises spectre of "stagnant and second-rate economy." Is talking about how to keep America competitive. This is important stuff.
But per Bush what is to credit for our competitiveness? You guessed it - - the tax cuts. In fact they've brought us the biggest deficits in years, and huge trade imbalances. He wants to make the tax cuts permanent.
It's hard to conceive of a bigger disconnect between rhetoric and sound policy on every issue: the rhetoric is great, the policies that undergird it are totally at odds with the professed aims.
I'm going to back off unless/until he gets back to foreign policy.
Scattered live-blog thoughts...
"We will not retreat from the world..." what does this mean to Bush? It's a whole different matter to be isolationist than to be interventionist.
"Our coalition has learned from our experience in Iraq." "I will seek out your good advice." This is odd. When has he done this? This is so choppy. Is he referring just to that one meeting with the ex-Secretaries of State? This just seems ridiculous. He can't claim credit for cooperation just by asserting it (although, I guess, this has never stopped him before).
Not-so-subtle dig at Democrats' "defeatism" -- it stikes me, as always, how nimble and savvy this team is at putting the other side on the defensive. How is a progressive to criticize the path in Iraq without being "defeatist"? What does that even mean?
"Never falter" -- an excerpt from the Dan Clay letter... I guess this kind of tactic is so tired it's not even shameless...
More in a few minutes...
Lines on war on terror sound tired - refernces to attacks in Beslan, etc. seem to be taken from an old speech.
"There is no peace in retreat and there is no honor in retreat." I agree with that, but don't think there's peace or honor in a miguided, mismanaged offensive either.
Strong push against isolationism. But who favors isolationism? He's setting up a straw man trying to act as if his political opponents stand for a US retreat from its commitments around the world. This is nonsense - we are the champions of internationalism, and historically always have been. Its the conservaties who came late to the party and still need to learn what viable, successful internationalism entails.
Talking about Iraq. Confident in our plan for victory. Says "we are winning." In a post soon I'll examine the numerical evidence.
Says troop reduction decisions will be made by military commanders, not pols in Washington DC. While there's some merit to that, the principle of political control over the military is vitally important. Congressional oversight of the war effort is badly needed.
Now calling critics of the war defeatists. "Hindsight is not wisdom, second-guessing is not a strategy." Guessing is not a strategy either.