Like Every Democratic President since Wilson, Clinton is a Liberal Internationalist

'Real' Democrats?

Much of this "progressive" brouhaha over Hillary Clinton stems from a misapplication of Neo-conservatism and a warped view of what an often stated 'real Democrat' is. There's also an oddly missing discussion of the Democratic Party's main foreign policy mantra of the last 100 years - liberal internationalism. The very fact that Democrats since Woodrow Wilson have been interventionallists - with the goal of spreading liberalism world-wide - should be enough to stop this "real Democrat" meme in it's tracks.

Before I go any further, I want to make a quick distinction. In any of these discussions, the point of what a 'real Democrat' is gets lost in a predictable sideshow. 'Progressives' want to discuss what they think Democratic party policy SHOULD be as opposed to what it IS and HAS BEEN. But that's really a totally different discussion. If someone doesn't think Democrats should be interventionalists, they shouldn't deny that Democrats are and have been for 100 years. Technically speaking - if we HAVE to draw a distinction between 'real' Democrats and others, and we don't - the interventionalists are the real ones. History proves it. Party platforms back it up.

Neo-Conservatism vs. Liberal Internationalism

Liberal Internationalism. Look it up. Liberal internationalism is a foreign policy doctrine that argues liberal states should intervene in other sovereign states in order to pursue liberal objectives. Such intervention can include both military invasion and humanitarian aid. It emerged during the nineteenth century, notably under the auspices of British Foreign Secretary and Prime Minister Lord Palmerston and was developed in the second decade of the 20th century under U.S. President Woodrow Wilson (D).

FDR used Liberal Internationalism to rally the United States and its allies to fight the Nazis and fascism. Harry Truman wielded liberal internationalism to forge global free trade agreements and the reconstruction of Europe and Japan. Unfortunately, it was also the guiding principle behind our involvement in Korea and Viet Nam and drove the cold war. (Like I said above, a discussion can be had on whether the policy SHOULD be a Democratic one. It can't be denied that it IS a Democratic one.)

Liberal Internationalism was the cornerstone of President Kennedy's entire foreign policy, nowhere better indicated than in his inaugural speech: 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.

Jimmy Carter insisted U.S. foreign relations should be "rebuilt upon the premise that the United States had a vital practical as well as moral interest in the promotion of a liberal world order." The principal foreign policymakers in the Carter Administration were in full agreement with the general tenets of Wilsonian internationalism. Brzezinski argues for a fusion of power and principle as "the only way to ensure global stability and peace while we accommodate to the inevitable and necessary reality of global change and progress." Human rights "was the wave of the present. It was the 'central form in which mankind is expressing its new political awakening,' and it was essential for the United States to be identified with this."

"As President," Carter reflects, "I hoped and believed that the expansion of human rights might be the wave of the future throughout the world, and I wanted the United States to be on the crest of this movement." Carter understood human rights to be more than "democratic principles such as those expressed in the Bill of Rights." LINK

Bill Clinton channeled Liberal Internationalism when he intervened in Bosnia and Kosovo (and should have in Rwanda). He expanded free trade, enlarged NATO, and pressed hard for peace in the Middle East.

Writer Juilan Ku writes a short but otherwise enlightening piece on President Obama and the difference between Liberal Internationalism and Neoconservatism. Neoconservativism tends to support unilateral or at least liberal coalitions acting alone whereas liberal internationalists are deeply committed to international institutions and their legal processes.

Short but accurate distinction. We can expand on this with the help of President Obama referring to Libya:

[bblock quote]“When you have civil conflict like this, military efforts and protective forces can play an important role, especially if they’re under an international mandate as opposed to simply a U.S. mandate. But you can’t solve the underlying problem at the end of a barrel of a gun,” he said. “There’s got to be a deliberate and constant diplomatic effort to get the various factions to recognize that they are better off arriving at a peaceful resolution of their conflicts.”

IRAQ! IRAQ! IRAQ!

In 2002 Hillary Clinton, like John Kerry, Joe Biden and other national representatives of the Democratic party, voted for the Iraq War resolution. An unfortunate and misguided action to be sure. She has since acknowledged the mistake and apologized for it. But in her speech on the Senate floor leading to that vote, she did what Kerry, Biden and others did - invoked the tenets of liberal internationalism. Coalitions. Humanitarian aspects. Like Viet Nam, this was a misuse of Liberal Internationalism to be sure but it still cannot be denied that liberal internationalism is and has been the underlying foreign policy doctrine of the Democratic party. Again, I'll stress debating that policy is a valid aim. Denying it is to deny history and established fact.

And I'll say emphatically that using the term 'neoconservative' when referring to her (or any Democrat I can think of) is an inaccurate use of the term. You may claim to not see a difference, but to call Clinton (and by extension Kerry, Biden, etc.) neocons is to also pin that label on Roosevelt, Truman, Kennedy, etc.