Exceptionalism as Foreign Policy

Let me offer a (probably) simplistic view of the differences in foreign policy between conservatives and liberals.

Conservative voters, I think, tend to view America as an exceptional land. As such, the foreign policy of our country must perforce be, if not perfect, at least the best attempt at it. The view of liberal voters is that it is only due to the actions of our country that we are exceptional, as because of that, we need to be sure that we take actions that make our exceptionalism a positive, and that it is way too easy to "go to the dark side" and use our exceptionalism as a borm of bullying.

To put it even simpler, a conservative believes that because it is our foreign policy then we need to support it. A liberal believes that because it is our foreign policy it is crucial to turn the most critical eye upon it.

Next Moves

Okay, I have spent the best part of a week revising and reviewing what has happened. I've also read a number of the "What do we do next?" articles. And, there are some good ideas, some crap ideas and a lot of shirt rending and hair pulling. I've thought and thought some more. There are a lot of good thoughts about what the Democratic Party stands for. I think this sort of introspection is useful, whether in victory or defeat. But, while we sit and think, events are moving forward. And while it would be useful to develop a complete ideological framework and then place world events into that framework, the pace of world events is not going to give us the leisure to do that.

So, I have thought some more and come up with a list of soon to be coming issues that we should be preparing to confront as well as my thoughts on how to go after them. I'm not going to bother with the minutiae of various policy moves afoot by the Republicans. There's precious little that can be done to stop/change any bills the Republicans come up with, and I think the nuclear option of filibuster should be held back unless the issue at stake is a judicial nomination. No, the things I think Democrats and Progressives (hereafter referred to as the opposition) should focus on are broad sweep sorts of issues, nothing that has yet got a bill attached to it, but rather longer term issues that are clearly upcoming on the agenda, if not quite enunciated yet. Enough prevarication - here is my list.

• War in Iran - Maybe the Iranians will decide to play ball, maybe not. If not, I think it safe to assume we will find the government issuing ultimatums to Tehran. Once those ultimatums are issued, the government will feel obliged to act on them. So, I think that the opposition should begin now to sow seeds of doubt about a third war in the mideast. We must hammer at this on all fronts: is war the right course? where will troops come from (draft)? what will a third anti-Muslim war do to our world standing? We must marshal connections with our erstwhile foreign allies to put pressure on the government. We must marshal our forces in this country by recognizing the long-term effects of this widening conflict. We must present alternatives to this conflict. We must make the case that not only is war bad, but that our ideas are better and safer.



• Gay Marriage Amendment - It is time, I think, for Democrats to embrace the gay community fully. If we do stand for equality in all ways, then we must stand by the LBGT community now. I still maintain that religious denominations may choose to discriminate as they wish (if they wish) as to whom they will marry, but as long as the government is in the business of sanctioning unions between two people, then we must insist that the government allow such unions between any two consenting adults, be they same sex or different. It is no longer right (as if it ever was) that we do a little do-si-do around our support for gays. They are deserving of full, unconditional support as members of our party and our nation. If we think that much of the country will not tolerate homosexuals, we must do all we can not only to recognize gays, but to make it clear that we are not ashamed of them but proud to have them as members of our party. It was very telling that most of the country saw John Kerry's acknowledgement of the Cheney's gay daughter as a serious breach of ettiquette. We have to be in the vanguard of the movement that doesn't quietly acknowledge that gay people exist, but celebrates the right of people to love other people. We have to make people see that being gay isn't something to be ashamed of or to keep only in the family. Gay people make good parents - make that very clear. Gay people can be moral paragons as much as any breeder. Damn it, gay people are people just like any of us. We need to make it clear that we aren't ashamed of our gay friends. This "nod and wink" disregard is teaching people that despite what we advocate, we Democrats aren't comfortable with gay people. Small wonder our positions are rejected. We lack even the nerve to stand proudly for a vibrant part of our party.



• Social Security Privatization - Social Security was not instituted as a reward for making it to retirement, nor is it an acceptable substitute for adequate retirement planning. It was, however, a reaction to the fact of thousands on thousands of homeless or utterly impoverished older adults during the Depression. It was decided that as a country, we had a solemn duty to make sure that our older citizens never faced their later years without some sort of safety net. It was the one thing, if all else failed, would be there for older Americans. That mission has remained unchanged despite the intervening years. As Democrats, we must point out and make VERY clear the fact that any plan that puts even the smallest risk into that safety net is not acceptable. Social Security is one of the lasting legacies of FDR, one of the heroes of the Democratic Party. There should be an unquestioned commitment to ensure the covenant made between the government and its citizens is never abrogated.

These are three of the larger issues for the Bush presidency. I think our national die has been cast in Iraq. I think the desire of the citizenry for more panacea tax cuts is clear. Between holding the line on the radical judciary and stating a strong moral case for the above three items, I think the Democratic party will have an effective battle order for the next two years. In 2006 we try again to make our case. With a strong vision on the above issues, we can make ourselves Democrats, not anti-Republicans.

Okay, Now What

Good question, really.

There's a part of me that wants to blow town. Go to France and become a cheese eating (supposed) surrender monkey. I want to run away to a place that has the beliefs I have. I want to be a part of a nation that believes in fundamental fairness. I want to be somewhere that believes that families shouldn't have to have two wage earners going 45+ hours a week just to barely make it. I want to be in a country where . . . where this election didn't happen.

But it did, and running away is the worst idea. If what I think America is about is at all dear to me, it is up to me not to run off in search of some simulacrum of it in a different country, but rather to stay here and do what I can to make it the country I think it is.

Frankly, though, I'm tapped for ideas. I cannot conceive of a more cohesive Democratic party than the one we saw the last six months. From MoveOn to ACT to CommonCause to the Deaniacs to Rock the Vote . . . I thought we had the soul of the party. And we not only lost, but we lost devastatingly.

I don't know the solution. Really, I do not. First of all, we have a fundamental schism in our party. There is the social justice crowd, with pro gay, pro gun control, pro abortion and pro environment positions. Then there is the economic justice crowd with issues like fair pay, overtime regulations, affordable healthcare and pro union power. The problem is that people are more strongly opposed to the social justice issues than they are motivated by the economic justice issues. Part of the reason is the unmitigated crap we are fed about how tax cuts give us more money to spend. Part of it is that many believe the life of a tycoon is only a lottery ticket/Survivor appearance/American Idol appearance away. On the other side of that equation, the social justice issues are not just issues of pragmatism, they are issues of fundamental belief. Abortion and homosexuality are not just political issues, not just matters of life and death, but matters that can save or damn a soul for eternity (not my belief). So, these social issues are of much greater relevance to these voters.

How do we overcome this? I wish I knew. I know I believe that neither half of the party can win by itself. And, I'm having a hard time working out how to reconcile these two halves of the party. So, for the moment, I am lost.

A Time To Vent

Ahh damn it.

In some ways I look at this as a referendum on Evangelical Christian morality than anything else. That and fear.

Fear first. I know that the events of September 11, 2001 were devastating. As I noted before, I lost a family member and was scared nearly out of my mind about a dear friend that day. I've got a handle on how scary the idea of terrorists are. I also understand the desire to strike back and fight them, both as a need for vengeance and to offer some semblance of security. And, I support the war in Afghanistan - the Taliban were well warned by two presidents that one more alQaeda linked attack would mean their asses were on the line (per Richard Clarke's book). But somewhere along the way, the fight we are fighting has ceased to be a war on terror and has become something else. I think facts have adequately established that the war in Iraq bore no relevance to the war on terror. I do not want to play a guessing game as to the motives the administration had in going into Iraq - it is irrelevant. We are there. Moreover, there is a large part of the populace that has not accepted these facts: Iraq had no part in 9/11, Iraq had no relationship with alQaeda, Iraq had no WMDs, and Iraq had no extant WMD programs for the last ten years. These are facts, but they are facts that a large part of the country has not accepted and maybe never will. As such, I'm not sure it matters if they ever do. Worse than all that, we have allowed the situation in Israel to deteriorate and we have created a lot of angry people with our adventure in Iraq. That does not bode well for a war on terror. So, to me, there is more reason to fear now than there was four years ago (or, perhaps more relevant, three years ago).

Now morality. I'm not an Evangelical Christian, nor do I ever plan on becoming one. As I have grown older, particularly since I have gotten married and had kids, I have found in myself a developing relationship with a spiritual higher power. I note that I do some serious semantic gymnastics to not say "God" there. It's not that I do not think God is the thing that I am becoming close to. It is much more that saying I have a developing relationship with God makes me feel that I am placing myself in the company of people whose beliefs I reject as wholeheartedly as I possibly can. My God does not believe in intolerance, manifest destiny or the various ways that many Christians have developed a sense of insularity - that everyone else is "them". Here is what I believe and I think my God wants the world to believe.

I think that gay people deserve every single right that straight people do. I think that Muslims and Jews deserve the same respect that Christians do (as do Hindus, Buddhists and so on. I mention those two specifically because to some extent American antipathy is focused to an extent on these groups). I believe that one can regulate guns without taking away the right to hunt or protect oneself adequately. I believe that the phrase "if you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to fear" is one of the most dangerous ideas in history. I believe that a corporate based economy is a very bad thing, and that the benefits of large corporations to workers are due to inefficiencies in the corporate structure and as these inefficiencies are corrected, the workers get less and less (more on this another time). I believe that there is a delusion out there that there is a strong flow of people from lower to middle class and from middle class to upper class. In reality, the flow is nothing like that - the flow is from middle to lower and upper to really upper. I believe that peace not war is the solution to terror. I belive terror cannot possibly be solved by violence, only by removing the causes of hatred.

So here we are. In my next post, I will go over what next.

Civil Discourse

Well, I suppose it was inevitable that our Kerry/Edwards sign was stolen from our lawn this weekend. I suppose I should be more upset about it, but I can't muster up much more than a despairing sigh. To whomever took the sign Saturday night (early morning actually), you've gone and confirmed my worst suspicions about current political supporters on either side of the debate. Disagreement is not permissible in our country, apparently, because both sides seem to view those who differ from them as misguided at best and deliberately destructive at worst. So much for an open market of ideas.