Tuesday, August 15, 2006
A New Direction in Foreign Policy? We can but hope.
It's simply amazing to think of what havoc the neoconservative foreign policy has caused since its main proponents asserted themselves in our government. In half a decade the US image abroad has plummeted to previously unseen lows, we've destroyed several countries with no solid plan to fix them (and, predictably, they've devolved into chaos) and we've sat by while a proxy nation has turned one of its neighbors into rubble. And the worst part, let's be frank, it has all been for naught. And yet still the unapologetic, incapable of mid-stream-correction TeamBush has soldiered on, making overtures to invade yet another foreign nation with a hostile regime in an unstable part of the world.
But equally disappointing has been the lack of a response from the opposition. Always yearning for the success of Clintonian triangulation, the Democratic Party has consistently opted for some muddled Republican Lite strategy--despite being handed an opportunity for change by the floundering GOP. Perhaps that is all about to change.
The first salvo in this new direction was sounded in a NYT op-ed piece by Robert Wright on July 16. Wright and his colleagues at The New America Foundation have outlined a new way for America to deal with the world. One which emphasizes transparency, engagement, and persuasion over the "for us or agin' us" mentality to Team Bush. The policy is called Progressive Realism, and as the title of his piece suggests, its a policy that "both realists and idealists should fall in love with." Rather than fail to do the concept justice I suggest reading it at the link above.
What I've found interesting is the traction this idea has gotten. Without mentioning his piece or Progressive Realism by name, Harvard scholar Juliette Kayyem wrote a piece in Sunday's Inky that echoed many of his points and further expanded on them. The 'new direction' theme was all over the place on Sunday, from Chris Matthews to a pleasantly coherent, on-message Howard Dean on Meet the Press. You could feel the wave of 'stay the course' Bushism breaking and receding in the face of a reality only the biggest neoconservatives now fail to recognize--their policy is bankrupt, it has no new tricks and has performed poorly with those it has enacted. What's desperately needed is something new.
Not that its so new, mind you. Realism as a stream of foreign policy, Wright reminds us, was conceived of and championed by Hans Morganthau and his devotees and has at its core an unflinching belief that policy must advance a nation's own self-interest. The progressive part of the equation comes from how we frame that self-interest. Again citing Morganthau, Wright notes:
Will it be embraced? Progressive Realism has had detractors on the left and right, but the discussion has allowed for clarification and expanding the conversation.And where we're currently heading just can't go any further (I type with crossed-fingers, having never thought our nation would be so reviled or complicit in so much overt shit in my lifetime and been proven wrong). We're bogged down, Israel's bogged down, having faced its own mini-Iraq in Lebanon, we're increasingly isolated and hated, and everywhere anti-Americanism and violent extremism are on the rise. Increasingly, an eye for an eye is making the whole world blind. While a policy of enagagement may not have the virile satisfying swagger of the John Wayne diplomacy we've grown to expect from TeamBush, it's clear the we're never going to win 'hearts or minds' going this route--and it should be equally clear that we'll never be able to kill or main them into obeyance. Alternatives, anyone?
It's simply amazing to think of what havoc the neoconservative foreign policy has caused since its main proponents asserted themselves in our government. In half a decade the US image abroad has plummeted to previously unseen lows, we've destroyed several countries with no solid plan to fix them (and, predictably, they've devolved into chaos) and we've sat by while a proxy nation has turned one of its neighbors into rubble. And the worst part, let's be frank, it has all been for naught. And yet still the unapologetic, incapable of mid-stream-correction TeamBush has soldiered on, making overtures to invade yet another foreign nation with a hostile regime in an unstable part of the world.
But equally disappointing has been the lack of a response from the opposition. Always yearning for the success of Clintonian triangulation, the Democratic Party has consistently opted for some muddled Republican Lite strategy--despite being handed an opportunity for change by the floundering GOP. Perhaps that is all about to change.
The first salvo in this new direction was sounded in a NYT op-ed piece by Robert Wright on July 16. Wright and his colleagues at The New America Foundation have outlined a new way for America to deal with the world. One which emphasizes transparency, engagement, and persuasion over the "for us or agin' us" mentality to Team Bush. The policy is called Progressive Realism, and as the title of his piece suggests, its a policy that "both realists and idealists should fall in love with." Rather than fail to do the concept justice I suggest reading it at the link above.
What I've found interesting is the traction this idea has gotten. Without mentioning his piece or Progressive Realism by name, Harvard scholar Juliette Kayyem wrote a piece in Sunday's Inky that echoed many of his points and further expanded on them. The 'new direction' theme was all over the place on Sunday, from Chris Matthews to a pleasantly coherent, on-message Howard Dean on Meet the Press. You could feel the wave of 'stay the course' Bushism breaking and receding in the face of a reality only the biggest neoconservatives now fail to recognize--their policy is bankrupt, it has no new tricks and has performed poorly with those it has enacted. What's desperately needed is something new.
Not that its so new, mind you. Realism as a stream of foreign policy, Wright reminds us, was conceived of and championed by Hans Morganthau and his devotees and has at its core an unflinching belief that policy must advance a nation's own self-interest. The progressive part of the equation comes from how we frame that self-interest. Again citing Morganthau, Wright notes:
Morgenthau seems to have sensed something that later political scientists
dwelt on: technology has been making the world’s nations more interdependent —
or, as game theorists put it, more non-zero-sum. That is, America’s fortunes are
growing more closely correlated with the fortunes of people far away; fewer
games have simple win-lose outcomes, and more have either win-win or lose-lose
outcomes.
This principle lies at the heart of progressive realism. A correlation
of fortunes — being in the same boat with other nations in matters of economics,
environment, security — is what makes international governance serve national
interest. It is also what makes enlightened self-interest de facto humanitarian.
Progressive realists see that America can best flourish if others flourish — if
African states cohere, if the world’s Muslims feel they benefit from the world
order, if personal and environmental health are nurtured, if economic inequities
abroad are muted so that young democracies can be stable and strong. More and
more, doing well means doing good.
Will it be embraced? Progressive Realism has had detractors on the left and right, but the discussion has allowed for clarification and expanding the conversation.And where we're currently heading just can't go any further (I type with crossed-fingers, having never thought our nation would be so reviled or complicit in so much overt shit in my lifetime and been proven wrong). We're bogged down, Israel's bogged down, having faced its own mini-Iraq in Lebanon, we're increasingly isolated and hated, and everywhere anti-Americanism and violent extremism are on the rise. Increasingly, an eye for an eye is making the whole world blind. While a policy of enagagement may not have the virile satisfying swagger of the John Wayne diplomacy we've grown to expect from TeamBush, it's clear the we're never going to win 'hearts or minds' going this route--and it should be equally clear that we'll never be able to kill or main them into obeyance. Alternatives, anyone?
Comments:
Post a Comment
