Whence the Democrats?
I just came across this thought provoking piece. I'm not sure I've full digested it yet, but much of it rings true to me. I don't normally put something this long on the blog, but I thought this was worth the price of the real estate.
I don't want to pick on Markos, but I am finding the debate that is going on about the philosophy or brand of the Democratic Party to be vapid and misplaced. The Bush administration has been revolutionary. The reaction to the Bush administration has been unfocused largely because the administration has stalwartly refused to operate within any of the long-established paradigms that existed in Washington D.C.
…
Prior to Bush's ascendancy, there was a bipartisan consensus about the nature and moral rectitude of the American Empire. There were vocal critics of American imperialism on both the left and the right. But the guiding principles of American foreign policy were defined by the Truman Doctrine, and the philosophy of Dean Acheson. Eisenhower continued those policies under the tutelage of the Dulles brothers, while Kennedy famously said, "Let every nation know, whether it wishes us well or ill, that we shall pay any price, bear any burden, meet any hardship, support any friend, oppose any foe, in order to assure the survival and the success of liberty."
…
With the breakup of the Soviet Union many expected a peace dividend. But the foreign policy establishment adroitly shifted the focus from the threat of communism to the threat of terrorism. Yet, under Clinton, the focus was on shifting NATO eastward, integrating the Eastern Bloc into Western Europe, and promoting democratic and free-market reforms throughout the former USSR. There would be no peace dividend. Instead, there would be any ever-increasing number of military outposts and bases...in Eastern Europe, in Africa, in the Arabian Peninsula, in Central Asia.
…
As Brzezinski correctly divines, the neo-conservatives have discredited not only themselves, but the very imperial policies that have defined the political center of America for sixty years. It is this crippling realization that has paralyzed Senators like Joe Biden, Hillary Clinton, and John Kerry, as well as startled Washington insiders like Tom Friedman and Fred Hiatt. Ironically, it is the blunt instrument of American imperialism, our armed forces, that have been left to disabuse the Establishment about our prospects for success in Iraq.
We are still in the early stages of a much greater reckoning. The center is still holding, insisting that a withdrawal from Iraq will be a 'disaster for the country' and resisting anything that might further erode support for the war...such as rigourous oversight of government corruption, illegal domestic surveillance, the manipulation of intelligence, or the removal of Donald Rumsfeld from the Pentagon.
When we sit down to talk about what the Democratic Party stands for, we have to realize that the center of the Democratic Party has been just as discredited as the center of the Republican Party.
Moderates propose to put our foreign policy apparatus back in the hands of the 'realists' and to return to our prior strategy of working within the United Nations and NATO, respecting international law, adiding by treaties, etc. But, the old consensus has been wiped away. And not, as Brzezinski suggested, by an "increasingly multi-cultural society", but by a remarkably raw showing of the true nature, aims, and costs of the imperial policies of the country's wisemen.
The sheer cost of the Iraq adventure is debilitating enough. We have watched one allied government after another fall to the opposition. Blair recently announced that he will not back us on strikes on Iran. Latin America has drifted sharply to the left. The devastation in Iraq has alienated the United States from our Cold War allies to such a degree that no new administration or Congress can put the pieces back together again.
America cannot fight a global war on communism or terrorism without the consensus of likeminded foreign powers. And without that consensus, we cannot continue to maintain our foreign bases, nor can we continue to justify the military budgets that come at the cost of universal health care, education, and basic infrastructure.
America is turning inward. And, in reaction, the Democratic Party will surely shatter just as badly as the Republican Party.
The job for the new wave of Democrats is to articulate a new vision for America. No longer will it be our mission to "to assure the survival and the success of liberty" throughout the world. In the post-Bush era, it will be our mission to restore America's moral standing, fix our budgetary problems, and mete out justice to the people and organizations that have brought on this catastrophe.
That is why the Democrats are wasting their time looking for any message about domestic affairs, or a gentle exit strategy from Iraq. We will find no peace between the new breed of Democrat and the Democrats in Washington that are still clinging to a bygone world.
The new Democrats and activists will correctly demand a platform that calls first for justice, and only later articulates what can be done domestically, on a hairstring budget.
Markos says:
The only message of the new Democrats must be accountability, including impeachment, a return to separation of powers, and no compromise with the Bidens, Clintons, or Kerrys.
The rationale for a bipartisan center is shattered. The Dems must move left.
I don't want to pick on Markos, but I am finding the debate that is going on about the philosophy or brand of the Democratic Party to be vapid and misplaced. The Bush administration has been revolutionary. The reaction to the Bush administration has been unfocused largely because the administration has stalwartly refused to operate within any of the long-established paradigms that existed in Washington D.C.
…
Prior to Bush's ascendancy, there was a bipartisan consensus about the nature and moral rectitude of the American Empire. There were vocal critics of American imperialism on both the left and the right. But the guiding principles of American foreign policy were defined by the Truman Doctrine, and the philosophy of Dean Acheson. Eisenhower continued those policies under the tutelage of the Dulles brothers, while Kennedy famously said, "Let every nation know, whether it wishes us well or ill, that we shall pay any price, bear any burden, meet any hardship, support any friend, oppose any foe, in order to assure the survival and the success of liberty."
…
With the breakup of the Soviet Union many expected a peace dividend. But the foreign policy establishment adroitly shifted the focus from the threat of communism to the threat of terrorism. Yet, under Clinton, the focus was on shifting NATO eastward, integrating the Eastern Bloc into Western Europe, and promoting democratic and free-market reforms throughout the former USSR. There would be no peace dividend. Instead, there would be any ever-increasing number of military outposts and bases...in Eastern Europe, in Africa, in the Arabian Peninsula, in Central Asia.
…
As Brzezinski correctly divines, the neo-conservatives have discredited not only themselves, but the very imperial policies that have defined the political center of America for sixty years. It is this crippling realization that has paralyzed Senators like Joe Biden, Hillary Clinton, and John Kerry, as well as startled Washington insiders like Tom Friedman and Fred Hiatt. Ironically, it is the blunt instrument of American imperialism, our armed forces, that have been left to disabuse the Establishment about our prospects for success in Iraq.
We are still in the early stages of a much greater reckoning. The center is still holding, insisting that a withdrawal from Iraq will be a 'disaster for the country' and resisting anything that might further erode support for the war...such as rigourous oversight of government corruption, illegal domestic surveillance, the manipulation of intelligence, or the removal of Donald Rumsfeld from the Pentagon.
When we sit down to talk about what the Democratic Party stands for, we have to realize that the center of the Democratic Party has been just as discredited as the center of the Republican Party.
Moderates propose to put our foreign policy apparatus back in the hands of the 'realists' and to return to our prior strategy of working within the United Nations and NATO, respecting international law, adiding by treaties, etc. But, the old consensus has been wiped away. And not, as Brzezinski suggested, by an "increasingly multi-cultural society", but by a remarkably raw showing of the true nature, aims, and costs of the imperial policies of the country's wisemen.
The sheer cost of the Iraq adventure is debilitating enough. We have watched one allied government after another fall to the opposition. Blair recently announced that he will not back us on strikes on Iran. Latin America has drifted sharply to the left. The devastation in Iraq has alienated the United States from our Cold War allies to such a degree that no new administration or Congress can put the pieces back together again.
America cannot fight a global war on communism or terrorism without the consensus of likeminded foreign powers. And without that consensus, we cannot continue to maintain our foreign bases, nor can we continue to justify the military budgets that come at the cost of universal health care, education, and basic infrastructure.
America is turning inward. And, in reaction, the Democratic Party will surely shatter just as badly as the Republican Party.
The job for the new wave of Democrats is to articulate a new vision for America. No longer will it be our mission to "to assure the survival and the success of liberty" throughout the world. In the post-Bush era, it will be our mission to restore America's moral standing, fix our budgetary problems, and mete out justice to the people and organizations that have brought on this catastrophe.
That is why the Democrats are wasting their time looking for any message about domestic affairs, or a gentle exit strategy from Iraq. We will find no peace between the new breed of Democrat and the Democrats in Washington that are still clinging to a bygone world.
The new Democrats and activists will correctly demand a platform that calls first for justice, and only later articulates what can be done domestically, on a hairstring budget.
Markos says:
...it's clear that the future of the Democratic Party isn't the current collection of constituency and issue groups. It's committed, movement-building progressives who fight for higher principles than narrow self-interest, and sell that vision to an American public that isn't as selfish and self-centered as Republicans would have everyone believe.In this, he's both right...and trite. The (near) future of the Democratic Party will not be based on issue groups, but for a different reason than Markos imagines. No issue groups, outside of ones specifically involved in our civil liberties and open government, represent the really pressing matters that concern the nation now. We have a rogue Presidency that is pursuing aggressive preemptive war based on manipulated intelligence, that has 'lost' billions of dollars, that is pursuing an extremely dangerous theory of the 'unitary executive', has been spying on American citizens, has authorized torture (even unto death). They have destroyed the centrist consensus on American Empire, and splinted our Cold War coailition to the winds.
The only message of the new Democrats must be accountability, including impeachment, a return to separation of powers, and no compromise with the Bidens, Clintons, or Kerrys.
The rationale for a bipartisan center is shattered. The Dems must move left.
posted by walldon | 8:56 AM
2 Comments:
Wow, what a great article (I read the whole thing). I have been in a number of circles where the imperialism thing has been discussed, but not with the Realpolitik analysis offered by Booman.
I fear that the country is simply not ready for this yet,however, and indeed may not ever be until some economic or military catastrophe forces the issue.
Are we willing to remain the party out of power, with an agenda that really is "anti-American", at least in relation to the long-standing consensus Booman describes? Hillary C., e.g., would not accept this, and I am inclined to take her side on this one. But I'm a lousy radical: it's one reason I became an Episcopalian.
Good points.
We are a one party system, with two wings: market portfolio moderates vs market portfolio conservatives.
Support the anti-globalization movement of social and economic justice to develop international guidelines for prosecution of war crimes, and evolution of sane global policies.
Throw your support in 2008 to Kucinich.
Most progressive and strongest candidate ever on the national scene!
America marginalized it's savior at it's own demonic risk !
Support the development of third parties that will draw Progressives from the ranks of the Democrats.
Write George Soros and suggest he help us to do this.
And most importantly: work to form a pro-democracy party that will, if change is not forthcoming-to stay, in the streets in Washington, New York, San Francisco, etc-until
the Bush regime steps down.
The multitude is the engine of democracy against the Empire.
Post a Comment
<< Home