Thursday, 06 March 2003
Facing the future: Last week I wrote that the Democratic Party risked sliding into irrelevance if it did not directly address the issue of terrorism: You can't win elections after 9/11 without a foreign policy, and you can't develop policy by just reacting to what the other party does. If the Democrats are to succeed in 2004 and beyond, they must present a foreign policy that is principled, consistent, and credible enough to attract voters (or, at the very least, that is sufficient to stem the tide of voters who would otherwise defect from the party).
Carping from the sidelines is a lot easier than offering real suggestions for what the Democrats should adopt as policy, though. It's easier to criticize than it is to create, and I don't claim that I have all the answers. But I do know what I'd like to see, and I think I can put together a statement of policy that would give the Republicans a run for their money (so to speak). For better or worse, here's the foreign policy theme that I think the Democrats should adopt.
Note that in several places below I use the words "we" and "us" to refer to the Democrats. This is not so much an expression of my personal party affiliation (I have none) as much as that it becomes awkward to write a statement of policy without using the first person.
Democratic policy must be true to Democratic principles. It must speak to the party's legacy of protecting human rights, and of promoting justice and equality. It must appeal to the party's history of multilateral engagement, of reaching out to other nations and helping them reach their potential. The Democrats fought and won World Wars, created the Marshall Plan and the United Nations, sent men to the Moon, fought for civil rights, and embraced the future where others feared it.
Where the Republicans deride the United Nations as a sterile debating society, the Democrats remember why our party created it: To provide the world with alternatives to war. By exploring all possible options on Iraq, the U.N. is doing exactly what it was designed to do, and America as a peace-loving nation encourages all sincere efforts to achieve a peaceful and satisfying resolution to the Iraq situation. Disparaging the U.N. is harmful to long-term American interests; our thoughtful criticisms are offered in the spirit of improving the United Nations, not of casting the U.N. aside.
Nonetheless, America must provide for the defense of its citizens, and we cannot make our security subject to international veto. The U.S. is the primary target of the enemies of freedom, and we will be patient but firm in our resolve to end the threat of terrorism and remove the conditions that support it. To paraphrase President Harry Truman, terrorism flourishes where the hope of a people for a better life has died. We must rekindle that hope in the hearts of those whom Al Qaeda would poison with hatred; we must open the eyes of those whom Saddam Hussein would blind with lies and deceptions.
We must shift the global debate on Iraq from a pedantic discussion of inspections to a moral question of justice. The Iraqi people cry out for freedom, and it is within the U.N.'s mandate and the U.S.'s ability to grant it; with that power to act comes the obligation to act, lest we become morally culpable. As Paulo Friere famously declared, washing one's hands of the conflict between the powerful and the powerless means to side with the powerful, not to be neutral. We cannot be neutral on the question of Saddam Hussein. If not for his sponsorship of terrorism, if not for his pursuit of chemical, biological and nuclear weapons, if not for his genocide of Kurds and Marsh Arabs, if not for his torture and murder of dissidents, if not for his wars of aggression, if not for his continuing defiance of the United Nations—if not for all these compelling casus belli, then for the cause of freedom and democracy, in the name of justice and liberty, and for the welfare and security of the United States and the world, we will see Saddam Hussein removed from power.
Our efforts to remove Saddam Hussein will be as humane and considerate of life as possible. While we recognize that war is deadly, we also know Saddam's reign of terror has already ended the lives of millions—and we remember that our efforts in Afghanistan saved thousands from famine and millions from tyranny. Our designs on Iraq are no different from our demonstrated intentions in Afghanistan, Kosovo, Haiti, Somalia, Kuwait, Lebanon, Grenada, Vietnam, South Korea, Japan, Germany, Italy, France, Belgium, the Philippines, and every other nation that has known the American soldier: To give the country back to its own people, and set up the conditions for democracy to flourish. If we have made these nations our vassals, then strange indeed is the American empire; if we have seized their resources, then history does not record it.
America's role at home and abroad must be the same: To secure the blessings of liberty and preserve the unalienable rights of the individual. We will remember the words of Benjamin Franklin, and give up no essential liberty for the sake of temporary safety; our greatest safety comes not from surrendering our freedoms, but from protecting them to the utmost. We will not judge our enemies by their race or religion, for the enemies of freedom come in every guise; we will not deny any person their sacred rights under national and international law. We will battle terrorism not only by fighting the fanatics and tyrants, but by fighting against poverty, hunger and despair; the dark and desperate corners of the world will know our generosity of spirit as well as our ferocity in defense of freedom.
The Democratic Party remembers the mistakes of history. We remember the end of World War I and the punishing Treaty of Versailles, which served only to ensure that Europe would go to war again. We remember the Boston Tea Party and the punishing Intolerable Acts, which served only to ensure that the Colonies were united in rebellion. We remember these incidents in light of the recent calls by our Republican colleagues to "punish" nations who oppose our policies on Iraq. We must respectfully disagree with their premise. We believe that history will punish the mistakes of other nations far more ably than any effort of ours—and that America should mete out punishments no more eagerly than it would be prepared to accept them. Though America holds a unique position in the community of nations, we do not presume to be a master among servants: It is our fondest hope that other nations will rise to join us in prosperity and freedom, not rise against us in fear of our wrath.
The Democrats will repair and strengthen the ties that join nations in mutual trust and regard. We will renew America's commitment to NATO, and support international treaties to preserve the environment, ban chemical weapons, and bring war criminals to justice. We will restore the lost art of diplomacy to American foreign policy, and treat other nations with dignity and respect; we recognize that America is held to a higher standard than other nations, and we will exceed that standard. We believe as Americans that we must dedicate ourselves not to a unilateral "war on terror," but to a multilateral effort promoting democracy, protecting human rights, and providing hope to those who would else despair.
We are patriots and liberals in the truest sense: We love America and believe no country has done more to bring freedom and justice to the world. We believe liberty and equality are not merely the ideals of a nation, but the universal birthright of all humanity. We believe America's strength comes not only from its military stature, but from its moral prestige: We believe peace and stability are preserved for all nations when America embraces the foundations of international law.
Now, this is a policy statement that may not be popular with many of the anti-war protesters who are marching in the streets these days. With all due respect to the protesters, though, I have to warn the Democrats: The most you can gain by courting the anti-war vote is the 2.7% you lost to Nader in 2000, and you'll lose at least 5-10% of the centrists for siding with Saddam and the French. There was a time and place where you could have made a principled stand against war in Iraq; the time was the summer of 2002, and the place was the Senate floor. Opposing the war now is politically futile and morally inconsistent. Don't do it.
Where the Democrats should make their case is where the Republicans are weakest: They should push their talents for building multinational coalitions and holding them together. They should point out that we didn't need to withdraw from the ABM treaty to conduct our ABM tests, and how that mistake two years ago kept Russia out of our corner. They should remind voters that Bush alienated Europe not once but several times, and that it is not in America's long-term interest to do this.
Whatever the outcome of the war in Iraq, the outcome for America's relations with Europe, Russia, and China is already clear: They have been badly damaged, and more so than was necessary. Bush will campaign on a "war President" theme; the Democrats must stress Bush's reckless mishandling of the U.N. debate. Democrats should remind voters how Britain's heavy-handed treatment of the Colonies sparked a revolution 227 years ago, and pointedly ask whether we want to repeat that history with Bush in the role of King George.
That's what I would do, anyway. I haven't tried to address the Democratic problem of finding a candidate, any of the Democratic issues on domestic policy (which has been their strong suit over the past decade), and goodness knows what adopting these positions would do to a candidate's chances of winning the nomination, which is always a problem for both parties: Their primaries filter out candidates most likely to appeal to the swing voters. (McCain would have trounced Gore, but he couldn't get past South Carolina.) But I think this is a starting point.
- Posted by Scott Forbes at 10:41 am. comments.
