Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
Clinton's Foreign Policy Coup
Democrats are becoming an interventionist party without any debate.
By Nicole Hemmer June 24, 2014 | 12:45 p.m.
The unraveling of Iraq over the past few weeks has re-energized the foreign policy fight within the Republican Party. Its a battle waged on one side by proponents of restraint, such as Kentucky Sen. Rand Paul, and on the other by the architects and advocates of the Iraq War, such as Dick Cheney, Sen. John McCain and Paul Bremer. Paul and Cheney both penned editorials for the Wall Street Journal, then made the rounds on the Sunday shows to defend their vastly different foreign policy philosophies. Their fight was public, passionate and personal. Paul wrote of those who supported the Iraq invasion, They have been so wrong for so long. Why should we listen to them again? Cheney dismissed Paul as basically an isolationist.
The intraparty feuding in the GOP, messy as it can be, is far preferable to whats happening among Democrats. While the Republican Party is dealing with a civil war over foreign policy, the Democratic Party faces a silent coup.
After winning a rough-and-tumble primary in 2008 that largely centered on the Iraq War, Barack Obama rejected the military adventurism of his predecessor and sought instead a policy of caution and moderation on the world stage. Hillary Clinton, his likely successor, promotes a far more interventionist approach to the world. Her nomination would represent a significant change in the partys foreign policy. (Need proof? Neoconservative Robert Kagan, who flayed Obama for his approach to the world in a much-discussed piece for the New Republic, said of Clinton, I feel comfortable with her on foreign policy.)
And yet in the Democratic Party, there are no signs of an impending civil war over foreign policy. There arent even signs of an impending debate.
Consider the upcoming race for the presidential nomination. The majority of Democrats say they would like to see Clinton face a primary challenge. Thus far, however, potential challengers have little to say about foreign policy. In his widely read cover story for the New Republic, Noam Scheiber detailed the threat Sen. Elizabeth Warren poses to Hillary Clinton. The story focused entirely on economic populism nary a mention of Warrens foreign policy views. (For good reason: Warren wouldnt give her first foreign policy speech until February 2014, four months after Scheibers story ran.)
More recently, Simon van Zuylen-Wood profiled Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders, who is toying with the idea of challenging Clinton in 2016. If Sanders runs, van Zuylen-Wood argued, he will do so as the candidate of the Democratic Party's uncompromising left flank. The 5,500-word profile dug deep into Sanderss views on economic inequality, but never once mentioned his views on Americas role in the world. The one possible candidate who has talked about the flaws of liberal interventionism is former Montana Gov. Brian Schweitzer, whose recent comments about Eric Cantor pinging his gaydar make it unlikely he will ever be taken seriously as a challenger.
At a time when the mood of the country supports far less intervention, why arent Democrats raising the alarm about a liberal interventionist as the presidents heir apparent?
In part, its because of Obamas team of rivals approach to governing. The president has overseen a foreign policy that reflects his own natural caution and restraint (the dont do stupid sh*t doctrine, as he put it). But he has surrounded himself with people like Clinton, UN Ambassador Samantha Power and others who advocate for a far more interventionist approach to the world. While political journalists have chronicled the conflicts between Obama and the liberal interventionists in his administration, the major role Clinton played in the administration flattens some of their differences.
MORE OF AN INTERESTING READ Continued At:
http://www.usnews.com/opinion/blogs/nicole-hemmer/2014/06/24/democrats-quietly-embrace-hillary-clintons-hawkish-foreign-policy
InfoView thread info, including edit history
TrashPut this thread in your Trash Can (My DU » Trash Can)
BookmarkAdd this thread to your Bookmarks (My DU » Bookmarks)
2 replies, 895 views
ShareGet links to this post and/or share on social media
AlertAlert this post for a rule violation
PowersThere are no powers you can use on this post
EditCannot edit other people's posts
ReplyReply to this post
EditCannot edit other people's posts
Rec (1)
ReplyReply to this post
2 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Clinton's Foreign Policy Coup (Original Post)
KoKo
Jul 2014
OP
bemildred
(90,061 posts)1. I agree.
We need to talk about foreign policy.
This next election is going to be very interesting too, as a measure of the political temperature. Are the voters upset or are they oblivious? If they look oblivious after this next election, we may never hear about foreign policy in 2016 either.
KoKo
(84,711 posts)2. Did you get a chance to watch this...
In the Video & Multimedia Forum?
It's an incredible discussion (I thought) of "Liberal Interventionalists" from the perspective of some wise people. I've not ever heard a discussion about this anywhere. Was blown away...
Here's the link:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/1017200625
BTW: Robert Parry is one of the panelists