Saturday, March 10, 2007

Why the Democrats Aren't Much of an Alternative

Tony smith, professor at Tufts University tells us why we should not expect too much change with the change of party control in Washington.

Many Democrats, including senators who voted to authorize the war in Iraq, embraced the idea of muscular foreign policy based on American global supremacy and the presumed right to intervene to promote democracy or to defend key U.S. interests long before 9/11, and they have not changed course since. Even those who have shifted against the war have avoided doctrinal questions.

[...]

In fact, these neoliberals are nearly indistinguishable from the better-known neoconservatives. The neocons' think tank, the Project for the New American Century (PNAC), often salutes individuals within the PPI, and PPI members such as Marshall signed PNAC petitions endorsing the Iraq invasion. Weeks after "With All Our Might" appeared, the Weekly Standard, virtually the PNAC house organ, gave it a thumbs-up review. And why not? The PPI and PNAC are tweedledum and tweedledee.

Sources for many of the critical elements of the Bush doctrine can be found in the emergence of neoliberal thought during the 1990s, after the end of the Cold War. In think tanks, universities and government offices, left-leaning intellectuals, many close to the Democratic Party, formulated concepts to bring to fruition the age-old dream of Democratic President Woodrow Wilson "to make the world safe for democracy." These neolibs advocated the global expansion of "market democracy." They presented empirical, theoretical, even philosophical arguments to support the idea of the United States as the indispensable nation. Albright's self-assured declaration descended directly from traditional Wilsonianism.

[...]

It isn't easy to offer a true alternative. The challenges to world order are many, as are the influential special interests in this country that want an aggressive policy: globalizing corporations, the military-industrial complex, the pro-Israel lobbies, those who covet Middle Eastern oil. The nationalist conviction that we are indeed "the indispensable nation" will continue to tempt our leaders to overplay their hand. The danger lies in believing that our power is beyond challenge, that the righteousness of our goals is beyond question and that the real task is not to reformulate our role in the world so much as to assert more effectively a global American peace.

Professor Smith clearly identifies the challenge for those of us who want real change in American policy throughout the world: developing a world view that supports American interests in a muturally cooperative world. It's not as sexy as the robust hegemony of the neo-cons and neo-libs but it is reality based in that it recognizes the limits of power. Right now, I am part of an anti-war movement that is concerned with a disastrous war. Professor Smith reminds us to look beyond our immediate pain and ask what should be the goals and means of American foreign policy. Many in the anti-war and other progressive movements have, in fact, asked this question but there is lilttle serious discussion among the major parties. We will have to force the issue.

Unfortunately, the only real vehicle for this purpose is the Democratic Party. To paraphrase Donald Rumsfeld, you go with the party you have, not the party you wished you had. I guess. That's why I have my doubts about the prospects for real change. Even so, I know what I want for America: peace and prosperity, the same goal I have for the rest of the world. Which is why I will continue to press Democrats to offer real change.

The Iraq debate is very, very important but it is only the beginning. I want Democrats to move American policy away from unilateral military action to diplomacy and negotiation. I want policy that acknowledges and understands the traditions, culture and needs of our partners in the world, the many peoples who share this planet with us. I want America to be a nation that is respected for our ideals, not scorned as a foreign occupier or cynical corporate and cultural manipulator.

America's history has always encompassed the twin threads of idealism and opportunisim with the latter often cloaked in the former. No doubt as human beings, we will always be subject to greed and self-interest but I am always rooting for the better angels of our nature to keep up the fight, to look beyond the immediate to see a new world of possibility.

Labels: , ,

0 Comments:

Post a Comment

<< Home