Hey, Libs!

[solarbird]

Hey, friends-list liberals! Read this NY Times article. Socialists, too. (Commies, conservatives, libertarians, and crypto-fascists can also read it, of course, but you lot already have foreign policy stories so you probably don't need to. Pretty good article, though.) I'm curious: what do you think?

Comments

[lickingtoad.livejournal.com]

I think he's being simplistic for brevity, but there's a kernel of truth to what he says. Ideologies have just as much power today as they did in Nazi Germany.

[brazilrascal.livejournal.com]

This is the exact hawk-lite rationale that has killed the Democratic party in the 90s. It flies in the face of five years of accrued experience in foreign matters. During the 90's, responding to foreign situation with localized measures and broad alliances was a factor in keeping the US growing and prosperous. The "let's fix the world by ourselves" school of foreign policy has barely managed a feudal narco-state in Afghanistan, a slow-burning civil war in Iraq with five massive permanent bases and the world's largest embassy/fortress embedded in the chaos, and perhaps Khomeini's wet dream of uniting all Shias in a jihad agaisnt the West.

Beinart is the Zell Miller of liberal journalists; the guy that tries to be a better progressive with a sustained policy of trying to out-republican the GOP. Those guys never seem to lack corporate funding for their campaigns, if nothing else.

Reminds me of the post-2004 mea-culpa after the election. "Maybe if we forgot about gay issues, racial equality and health care we could elect a liberal and see some change!" Af ig it had been Dennis Kuchinic running instead of "let's send more troops to Iraq" Kerry.

[solarbird]

Um... did you read the article? You seem to be advocating the same thing he is, but attacking him for it.

Admittedly I read it in a hurry, so maybe I missed something, but my reading comprehension is usually pretty good, even at speed.

During the 90's, responding to foreign situation with localized measures and broad alliances was a factor in keeping the US growing and prosperous.
And that broad-alliance shared-power framework thing is the kind of thing he appears to me to be advocating, only anchoring it back to a historical tradition to show how and why those sorts of things are important.

[brazilrascal.livejournal.com]

I did read it, but I also know Beinart. You have to read between his lines. Look up his TNR article "A Fighting Faith" for a better example of his designs.

He doesn't get that such broad-based alliances were only possible BECAUSE there was no such zeal to spread 'democracy', something he defends as a good strategy. Crusades are less popular when they come with occupations attached, and todays clashes as a nightmarish jumble of ethnicity, religion and idology all put together (in truth, they were always like that, but the overriding factions of the XXth century put them on the back seat somewhat). He's trying the good old "We democrats will -know- how to make the War on Terror fun!" gambit.

He's moderated his language, but the same memes he used to coax democrats into supporting the invasion of Iraq ("You'll look 'soft' if you don't!!!") are there.

[firni.livejournal.com]

I think I'm sick of them asking for registration.

[solarbird]

nyreader / bogon

also bugmenot.com

[avram]

Or just use this link.

[firni.livejournal.com]

!

Magic!

[firni.livejournal.com]

I totally forgot about bugmenot, sorry about that!

[backrubbear.livejournal.com]

Completely aside from anything else, I think he highlights the failure of our "two party" system.

[jarandhel.livejournal.com]

I'm thinking it's about time more people started to really *get* that this whole thing hinges on the stories, the mythic realities, espoused by both parties and that the Dems so far have not even begun to frame their truths within such a story. On the other hand, Republicans not only consistently frame things in the form of interconnected stories, they do it both consciously and blatantly, even writing articles on how to do it better. And for the most part, the liberals just sit there and ignore the fact that the Republicans are blatantly exposing their playbook with such articles, and go about what they've been doing rather than adjusting their tactics accordingly.

I think I'm going to spread this article around...

[llachglin.livejournal.com]

I've just read the first page, but I have big problems with it already. First off, I think he lets Cold War liberals off for their mistakes, and tries to make them better than they were. I personally think that Cold War liberalism was largely a failure, because it was too much affected by Cold War values instead of liberal ones. It was, after all, the primary ideology behind the Vietnam War. Where it did have some successes is in helping to lay the foundation for human rights in foreign relations, which has been responsible for much good in the world (as well as a lot of neo-Wilsonian nonsense).

What's needed now is not a resurrection of a past set of mistakes, but something never seen before. We need to reframe security in an international context that transcends the usual concepts of diplomacy and militarism. That means defining natural disasters, ecological and climate change, pandemic disease, immigration, international trade, and poverty as global security issues that require solutions at the international level. Nationalism is the problem, and any foreign policy based on reaffirming nationalism as the framework of foreign policy is doomed to failure.

I'll read on to see if the tone changes in later pages, but this is my initial reaction. I tend to be more internationalist and less interventionist than most liberals, though, so my view may not be representative.

[llachglin.livejournal.com]

After reading it all, my opinion hasn't changed much. I am heartened to see that he stresses international institutions and separating US aid from local people who may have different priorities on how to spend it.

But ultimately he fails because he has no vision of anything new. He just wants to remake the world of liberal foreign policy pre-1964, but minus the communist threat. The reality is that if we rely upon US bilateral aid, we're just begging for an attempt to impose US power over local concerns, even if we're conscious of our own limitations. We need an international agency with real power to do something on behalf of an international interest, that is not just a front for the US and other powers. The problem with the UN, now and since its inception, is that it was just a layer of gloss on the club of WWII Allies and whatever they happened to agree on at any one time. It was better than having no international agreements at all, but as time went on its better features were continually eroded until it's the empty shell it is now. And Beinart just wants to rehabilitate that without rethinking the underlying assumptions.

What I would favor instead is an international treaty that founded a UN based on popular rather than national representation. That is, the General Assembly needs real power, and it needs to be elected by the people and not appointed representatives of nations. The Security Council can remain as a kind of international Senate of nation states, but it needs to expand its core membership and eliminate singular vetoes, and it needs to be checked by a General Assembly with real power. That agency then needs some kind of funding source not controlled by member states, such as an incremental tax on investment across international borders, so that the global capital interests who benefit in the current regime can play their proper role in funding something new.

Then that body needs a Constitution that limits its powers to truly international issues. Essentially, it should be a development agency that can spend development money anywhere without regard for national borders. When it comes to issues of security, the Security Council should probably retain primary responsibility, but again the permanent memberships need to be broadened and vetoes weakened. The charter rules against military action by member states need to be strengthened so that no sustained military action is allowed without UN approval, and the failure to gain approval means automatic and immediate suspension of membership privileges. The General Assembly should be able to override the Security Council with a large enough majority.

The US needs to use its power to devolve its authority to this global agency, and to promote the new institution among other nations. It needs to willingly relinquish its superpower role, so that instead of being just the most recent world empire to end up on the ash heap of history, it becomes the empire that made new empires impossible. Short of creating a true international authority, the US needs to commit to more foreign development aid on its own, and less or even no military aid or interventions anywhere, in order to promote democracy and development without pursuing an imperial agenda. I can list several specific policies that the US should pursue, but I've already drafted a manifesto, so let's leave it there.