National Security Democrats

http://www.nypress.com/18/12/news&columns/taibbi.cfm



Joe Biden, Hillary Clinton, John Edwards, Evan Bayh. These geniuses have concluded that the way to win in 2008 is to become even more craven, bloodthirsty, and anti-Bill of Rights than the Rethugs.

We have to stop them NOW, or 2006 and 2008 will doom this country to one-party rule of the Rethugs for at least a generation. And we won't survive that.

This policy is fucking dogshit.

" ...learn to embrace Republican heroes like Ronald Reagan." This has the potential to turn into a mess. I'm sure another "republican hero" they will heap praise on will be W.

the new Republican moderates.

I do not follow the logic.

not all Dems have the same priorities.

We tend to the left - but if someone is a bit more to the right than oneself, could they still not be to the left of the GOP.

And what is point of a pure far left party that could not elect a dogcatcher?

So at least for me - being more open to the idea of military action, and even preemption - and projection of American power - is not a deal braker or a crisis that will doom my grandkids.

However I do agree that if one of those Dems were to "learn to embrace Republican heroes like Ronald Reagan" - the rapist of Selena Walters, the fellow that ended Federal mental health care funding, that ended free speech by ending the fairness doctrine and veto'd a Congress passed law to demand fairness in the media, that said catsup is the only veggie American kids need, that you've seen one tree you've seen them all, that screwed us all on the payroll tax saying those trust bonds were real assets that would pre-fund the boomers while knowing the GOP would never raise taxes on the rich via FIT when those assets were needed to fund SS benefits, that embraced and funded the killers of nuns when they helped the poor rather than the rich in South and Central America - well if the Dems embrace Ronald Reagan -

I am no longer a Dem.

No way is that John Edwards' position. I'm sure his words were twisted.

Even I might say that Reagan was popular or very good at defusing a situation or .... That doesn't mean that I admire the man. In fact, those very qualities enabled him to do great harm to our democracy.

They float this fake shit with the hope it will gain some fucking traction.

opinions on foreign policy are all that well formed, frankly. I seem to remember that Holbrook was given the role of Higgins to Edward's Dolittle during the last election.

"The bombs in Iraq fall mainly on the Sunni."

My least favorite Edwards fomulation was during a Primary debate, when asked about his position on Iraq, he stated that (paraphrasing), "I don't see how anybody can look at what happened on 9/11 and think that invading Iraq was the wrong thing to do."

That is, of course, Rumsfeld's line. It's also complete horseshit.

Biden said Reagan, not W. For the GOP claims of Reagan winning the Cold War, it's pretty obvious that all he did was exactly what Truman would have done (well maybe not 9% growth/yr for defense). Reagan wasn't quite dumb enough to rush into war without a thought for the condition of the peace after the fact (unlike somebody we know so well). We should celebrate Reagan as a great student of Democrats. :P

Ok, that was mostly tongue in cheek. Seriously, though, I think I see where Biden is going though he's not doing a great job of selling it. A distinction needs to be drawn between an assertive foreign policy and an aggressive foreign policy.

The goal of an assertive policy would to be ensure that no single power or combination of powers is able to dominate any of the world's major industrial/economic regions. This can be done both through the UN and through a series of overlapping regional alliances. The role of the US would be that of a natural balancer. This idea is analogous to the policy of Britain regarding continental Europe in the 19th century.

An aggressive foreign policy? Starting a war based on the premise that a military solution is all that is necessary. Starting a war with no thought to the state of the peace that will follow. Estranging necessary allies in the effort to excise Al Qaeda.

Your last two sentences in the former camp brings to mind some thoughts. The role of the US would be that of a natural balancer. This idea is analogous to the policy of Britain regarding continental Europe in the 19th century.

IIRC, Britain in the 19th century was also a horrible colonial power as well. They used the idea of "white man's burden" to justify the iron-fisted rule and fleecing of such resource-rich areas as India and Africa. They may have maintained a balance of power in Europe, but they were anything but a "balancer" throughout what we now refer to as the developing world.

If I read the likes of Biden, H. Clinton, Bayh, etc. correctly, this is pretty much what they have in mind as well. They simply want to learn to play a little better with the European nations while simultaneously perpetuating hegemony throughout the global south. My biggest problem with this approach is that it is one that is still based on naked American self-interest (although certainly arguably more enlightened than the current path) and has very little to do with the idea of bringing about global justice.

Jeffrey Sachs of Columbia has said that we could wipe out poverty within 20 years if we were willing to put a mere 0.7% of our GNP toward real foreign aid (kind of like the Marshall Plan). Imagine what we could do if we abandoned the path of militarism and scaled back out military expenditures to be more in line with the rest of the world, used a portion of the monies to upgrade our domestic infrastructure, and used another portion for what Sachs proposes? We would truly become the most popular nation in the world, and would see the "threats" against us pretty much melt away.

Instead, we're left with politicians from both sides trying to maintain a hegemony that largely no longer exists, and all of us end up paying a price for their foolishness....

I'm well aware of Britain's colonial past. I most certainly don't recommend repeating it. However, I disagree with a fair amount of your assessment.

American self-interest must be the cornerstone of any foreign policy. This isn't an option, it's a moral obligation. The government owes a duty to its citizens both in terms of domestic policy and foreign policy. A foreign policy based exclusively on altruism toward the rest of the world would be morally bankrupt because its focus would be wrong. Don't get me wrong. I am not saying that altruism is bad in itself, I am only saying that it cannot be the sole underpinning of American foreign policy.

Global justice is a nebulous idea. I'm not being sarcastic, I'm dead serious. Justice is not an absolute concept. Different societies do have different ideas of just what justice means.

Scaling back defense spending to a level commensurate with the rest of the world and massively increasing foreign aid. A real foreign aid program for the developing world wouldn't be based on the Marshall Plan, but the New Deal. The heart of the New Deal was to bring poor farmers into the twentieth century. The Marshall Plan was a program for a continent that needed rebuilding, not one that was starting from scratch. It's past time that US should have done this. Such an effort would need to be matched by developing countries, though. For example, in many of the poorest countries, starting a small business is a monumental task. Those countries should be required to open their economies to their own citizens as part of the aid program. A successful foreign aid program is a two way street. The US could provide money and expertise and the recipient would make substantive structural changes, such as guaranteeing the rule of law.

I disagree with scaling back defense spending to a level commensurate with the rest of the world. I'm not defending current levels because, frankly, they're pretty damn difficult to figure out. The problem with relying on popularity to deter threats is that it misses the real problem. The assumption that poverty is the source of war is not quite right. Revolutionaries, such as we saw repeatedly in the last century, invariably come from at least a middle class (or equivalent) background. The number one reason wars get started is because the aggressor thinks he can win. A massive cut in defense spending would provide great temptation for any country with real or imagined grievances (imagined being the most deadly of all).

American military hegemony still exists, even with the current war. It should be extended so that the US can play the role of balancer that I described. Though US hegemony is not ideal, it has repeatedly proved better than any available alternatives.

I need to read the Sachs plan again. I remember reading about it last year when he first announced it, but it's been a lot of school since then. :P

... being "proved better than any available alternatives." Well, maybe none of the other alternatives have been TRIED, but I would hardly say that eliminates them from consideration.

Regarding massive increases in foreign aid -- personally, I believe such a tactic to actually be in America's best self-interest. I'm not talking about bankrupting the United States, that would be completely counterproductive. However, if you noticed, the first part of my proposal was to undertake a massive rebuilding of America's domestic infrastructure. Such a move would make us more economically competitive with the rest of the industrialized world and spur technological innovation -- innovations that we could then share with the developing world. Part of the reason that the World Bank is trying to force massive hydrodams and fossil fuel power generation upon the developing world is because the US has been completely neglectful in developing alternative energies of its own. It's all a vicious cycle.

As for scaling back military expenditures, we already spend more than the rest of the world COMBINED on the military (last year total expenditures on the military were in the neighborhood of $570 billion). We could easily scale back our total expenditures in this area to the $100-150 billion range and STILL have the best equipped, best trained military on the face of the earth. However, such a shift would also require a shift in the way we view our military. Right now, the American military is treated as purely an offensive force, whether we like to admit it or not. It has NOTHING to do with defensive capabilities. Such a transformation of our military would require a sea change in thought processes, coming to treat it as a defensive and multinational interventionary force.

Poverty is not the source of war. However, it DOES fuel sympathy for those groups that resort to violence in order to address some very real grievances. For instance, as much as I view al Qaeda as a decent into barbarism and religious tribalism, and as much as I find their methods completely and utterly abhorrent, if you take an objective look at their stated grievances they are, for the most part, far from radical. They gain so much traction now due to the role of the US in the Middle East, and also due to the ham-fisted response of the US after 9/11. Seeing as how we live in a much smaller world and have developed the international institutions, however imperfect they are, to deal with disputes, it is really not in any nation's best interest to engage in aggressive war anymore.

Where you and I disagree is on the nature of US hegemony. I see it as a shadow, you seem to believe it still exists. I would recommend you check out After the Empire by Emmanuel Todd for a pretty good insight into where I draw my conclusions from.

As for justice, it means different things INSIDE different countries, but there is a pretty well-established basis for applying it on a global level. Much of it is laid out in the charter for the United Nations. That's more along the lines of what I'm talking about, and right now the US is failing miserably to meet its criteria.

Finally, thanks for responding to my post in a thought-provoking way. All too often at DU things get lost in just looking at things in too simple of a way that precludes thoughtful analysis.

The available alternatives to American hegemony were Nazi and Soviet hegemony. When I think of available alternatives, I think of ready and willing to step in, which is why I see it narrowly.

I don't disagree with an increase or reworking of the methods of American foreign aid. I don't think we're very far apart on this issue at all. If we did have a difference, it might be in how such a change would be started. For the sake of argument, I would like to see 5-10 countries picked as pilot projects so that the needed lessons can be learned and mistakes corrected on a small scale. Of course, we might agree on that as well!

Modernizing the existing infrastructure is primarily a state function. This is not to say that the federal government has no role, just recognition that the primary onus is on the states. The race to the bottom in taxation on the part of the states needs to be ended. Sufficient incentives (and coercion) has to be applied to get them on the job of fixing their roads, utilities, and schools. If the states want to claim any sovereignty, it's time they owned up to the responsibility.

The role of the military is defense through power projection. The point is to have overwhelming military superiority so that potential opponents think about 12 times before testing it. The way I think the military needs to change is in the methods of warfighting. General war is not terribly likely in today's world. What is likely is low-intensity/guerilla style conflicts. Proper attention to counterinsurgency and pacification has never been paid. Unless the military, especially the army, gets a firm grasp of how to do this, the potential of future Vietnams looms.

I've heard estimates of $750-800 billion in defense spending. This may be too high. Even at current levels, it's less as a percentage of GDP than during the Cold War. I don't think the amount is nearly as important as how it's spent. That ties into what I was talking about in terms of what kind of wars are likely.

You're dead right on the relation of poverty to war. It provides a ready made pool of recruits. The support for dictators during the Cold War was understandable; after all, there were very few democracies before the collapse of the USSR. It's not a bad idea to support self-determination, but it is a bad idea to simply advocate the spread of democracy without a thought of what results might come (sound like someone we know?).

Hegemony is a difficult beast to define. I don't claim that America necessarily possesses an economic hegemony. I do claim that military hegemony is a reality. In terms of likely scenarios, involving state actors, sufficient force exists to stalemate say, a North Korean invasion of South Korea or a Chinese invasion of Taiwan. It may not be enough to win without reinforcements, but it can deny quick and easy victory. Sometimes, that's enough to buy time to change the ratio of force in a given theater.

I'll check out the book after finals. Thanks for the recommendation.

I'm not sure if justice is really the best policy in the international arena. I think fairness, defined as a settlement more or less agreeable to parties in a dispute, might be the better way to go. We might be talking about the same thing here. The difference could be just one of the words we use to describe the same thing.

I always like it when someone makes me think through my assumptions. Even if I don't change my mind, I still end up with a better idea of exactly what I think and believe. So, thanks to you too.

I think the key for all of us is to remember that we don't necessarily have different goals in terms of foreign policy. I think it would be best, as a party, to shed the old dove/hawk divide and decide to be owls. After all, it's owls that have the reputation for wisdom :P

You are correct in stating that the alternatives WERE between American hegemony and either Nazi or Soviet hegemony. Given those choices, American hegemony was certainly preferable. However, when given the option of abandoning that hegemony when the opportunity to do so has presented itself, we have failed every time -- from the advisement of George Kennan to approach the Soviet reformers following Stalin's death through to the present day and the non-existant "peace dividend" following the Cold War.

I don't think we're far apart at all on foreign aid and the changes that need to be made there. So, there's not much sense in discussing this further right now.

WRT modernizing infrastructure, there are certainly many areas in which the states need to step up. However, many of the most influential infrastructure projects in our history (i.e. the interstate highway system) were pushed at the federal level. Given the way in which our transportation, energy and communications networks are so interlinked, there has to be a symbiotic balance. When we get into things like schools, however, this is something that has to be pushed on the states, and there have to be federal mandates to ensure that we revitalize our physical educational structure as well as our ongoing funding.

WRT military spending, I'm well aware of the STATED purpose of the United States military. After all, I used to be an officer in the Army Reserve. However, ultimately such a posture is OFFENSIVE in nature. It is meant to maintain hegemony, and often for the benefit of the upper 10-20% of US income holders, and especially the top 0.25% of wealth holders, over everyone else. After all, there ain't no people in Harlem or South Central who are benefitting from massive military expenditures. If anything, they're the ones who see their opportunities diminish.

Expenditures during the Cold War, while higher than now as a share of GDP, were also more sustainable then due to US manufacturing might -- a luxury we no longer have. Furthermore, military spending has become so tied up in Congressional pork and overall corruption that it MUST be diminished significantly, if only for the purpose of reclaiming our democracy. For further info on this subject, I would recommend Fortress America by William Greider and The Sorrows of Empire by Chalmers Johnson.

Military hegemony is, IMHO, a paper tiger. It is unsustainable without economic hegemony or, more importantly, a projection of positive and identifiable values around the world. As it is right now, we certainly do not have an economic hegemony, and we are increasingly being seen as militaristic hypocrites by the rest of the world. Not exactly a recipe for success, IMHO.

As for the idea of justice, I think that Noam Chomsky summed it up best when he said the guiding rule of US foreign policy should be, "First, do no harm." It's actually a pretty simple rule to follow, provided that one takes into account the wishes and desires of others as much as one considers their own. This rule, however, is most often violated out of selfishness, out of the idea of "more" that seems to guide American society as a whole rather than the idea of "enough". But that's all another whole ball of wax for another discussion.

I always like it when someone makes me think through my assumptions. Even if I don't change my mind, I still end up with a better idea of exactly what I think and believe.

Same here. ;-)

up to PNAC, I will give my life to fighting their traitorous souls!!!

Is this article just way slanted? I don't mind moderates (not DINOs!, but true moderates), trying to reach across divides but this shit isn't repug lite, its low carb PNAC!!

bahhhhhhhh!!

That's what this position represents. It's not interested in promoting justice, it's interested in maintaining hegemony. The problem is, they're trying to maintain a hegemony that exists largely in appearance only nowadays.

The only reason it still appears to exist is that the rest of the industrialized world is still of the mind that it would result in too much short-term pain for them to pull out of the US economically and see America come crashing to earth. They've instead decided to put up with our extreme foolishness, for the time being. But if we keep going at this rate -- under either Bush or the more "enlightened" version of hegemony promoted by this crew -- sooner or later the world will tire of our antics and decide that the pain is worth it in order to rid the world of the #1 rogue state, Imperial America.

because of this as much as when I really think about it Im not shocked or surprised that these Dems are doing this. These are the same dems that want to get rid of the real left. They dont want our votes and they dont care about our issues. They'd rather we just left "their" party so they can more seamlessly merge with the right.

one can be as well as being a liberal. Seriously. Neoconservative is entirely a foreign-policy label. Quite a few neocons proper are social progressives or environmentalists.

And this would be nothing more than trying to reach across divides. Quite a few people see us as being wimps or cowards afraid of fighting. As long as these people aren't in the majority of the party, there's no harm in this.

Ya know I wrote you quite a long reply back, justifying my use of the non-word "neodem" (all sarcasm taken sincerely). I also included several long paragraphs on why I feel your view on neocons is outdated...

I was finally going to give you hell bent for leather fuck alls about the "wimps" and "cowards" line.

Instead I realized you're not my enemy, and even though I disagree with you, I would not try and come off as insulting and patronizing whilst attempting to reeducate you in regards to your ill gotten knowledge.

Nope instead Im just going to laugh...


Peace (sincerely)




on edit: oh the usual.

"by revolting hair-plug survivor Joe Biden."

ROFL! :-)

going to go there because whatever it is, it makes you a stupid, gulliable piece of shit!

Can these people not see the forest for the trees? Do they not realize that a majority of the people voted against the weed and his lies and if they want political victory they have to stand up to the bastards and for the citizens! :argh:

you'll ever dream of looking at, and they all have come to the conclusion that the majority of people indeed voted for Bush. As has every single lawyer working for the K/E campaign, as has every commentator, as has all but two or three House Democrats.

We have more information on the issue than they have and they have not bothered to review all the information that has been compiled.

Glad you live in fantasy land with them. Hope you are happy and won't mind watching 2006 and 2008 go the the repukes.

BTW -- How the fuck do you know what they know? Do you have links to support your position and theirs are are you just professing what you understand to be the truth?

Every piece of information you have they have as well. Quite frankly, there's nothing you've seen that hasn't filtered through congressional staff. They have groups of lawyers and experts who are paid to do nothing but research and review. They have internal information that you do not have access to, whereas all of the 'information' you have is readily avalible to anyone with so much as a 14.4 modem.

I'm not going to get into this fucking debate again. Christ, people here are like brick fucking walls on perpetual ego trips. If it makes you all feel better, think that you know more about the Ohio situation than the managers who spent two years poring over every possible detail--including the unverified, unsourced crap on the internet--regarding the upcoming election and the lawyers who spent three months poring over every possible detail--including the unverified, unsourced crap on the internet--after the election, sure. Go ahead. Somehow I get the feeling that's slightly more of a 'fantasy land.'

Oh, and one last thing. When 433 Congressman, 99 Senators, the hero-liberal chair of the DNC, Al Franken, Michael Moore, James Carville, and an army of eager journalists all don't think the 'information' you're so proud of is worth a nickel, perhaps you're the one in the fantasy world.

How do you know what 433 Congressman and 99 Senators and Dean think? YOu have provided me with no sources to prove your claims. Mamma T came out and said what we all know. Litigation is still pending in an effort to see inside the computers to test them and their software. Litigation is still pending on the disenfranchisement issues and more is to be filed in the future. Gee, where is the report of the Dems and their experts that were gathered together to investigate the Ohio elections, has that been released yet? Does that back up your claim or does it support the fact that dems still care, that the matter is still being investigated and litigated and you are talking about things you do not know or you are spreading disinformation.

As far as Al Franken, Michael Moore, James Carville, and an army of eager journalists, I could care fucking less what they think. They also believe the RWers are the majority in this nation and I know they are not. They are the loudest, they are the most irritating and the most exploited, but they are not the majority. And, if folks like you ever comes to terms with that, maybe, just maybe the party may become strong again. If our party leaders would accept the fact that we are the majority, we won and folks don't like what the weed and his admin have done and continue to do to our nation, then they would find the backbone to stand up to them and do what is right for all of the nation and not a select band of loud fanatics.

The apathetic and willfully ignorant, that's who. I'm not trying to be elitist here, but when you live in a country in which only 6% of the population has read a book in the last year, and the majority receive their news through television, I don't know how else to really put it.

The RWers simply do a much better job at appealing to them through fear. The choice before Democrats is whether to work on the same level as the Republicans by appealing through fear as well (a losing proposition IMHO), or rather to appeal to them through hope.

How exactly we do that right now, I'm not entirely certain, but I am definitely open to suggestions.

Oh GOD I hope that's a typo...

I pulled it from The Twilight of American Culture by Morris Berman.

Scary, ain't it?

Yes, it is a sad number! :cry:

I try to combat it. I give books for Christmas and birthday presents. I try to find books that will interest the person.

is recognizing that they are not the majority and that most citizens of the nation want to live with hope and not fear.

I'm not going to get into the whole election issue here, because there's no way any of us can tell what really happened here. But if you're talking about intelligence information, then I'm not sure that "more" is necessarily "better" in this regard. After all, many of these same folks relied on the "intelligence" about Iraq in order to vote for the IWR.

Secondly, these folks are products of the Beltway establishment. Their entire existence is in a fantasy land, separated from the real lives that other people have to live. That alone makes their judgement extremely suspect in my eyes.

ON EDIT: After reading your response, I'm not entirely sure that this sidetrack had anything to do with "intelligence" or was strictly about the 2004 vote. For clarity's sake, I'm simply talking about intelligence here and NOT the 2004 election.

And not intelligence in general.

Last I checked, it wasn't 'craven' to go against your party. They'll find no support from the Republicans, and now they'll find no support from the Democrats either. And before you say they're selling out; they're still political enemies of the Republicans--the Rs don't cut slack just because you agree on some points. All they 'gain' here is enemies in the left-wing faction of the Democrats.

And being interventionist is not anti-Bill-of-Rights. That makes no fucking sense whatsoever. Kennedy was an interventionist. So was FDR. So were Truman and LBJ.

In case you don't remember, every major conflict of the 20th century save Iraq was started by a Democrat! WW1, WW2, Korea, Vietnam, CMC, Bay of Pigs...heck, the tensest years of the Cold War were under Democrats, and it was Nixon, a Republican, who started cooling the situation off! Were any of those violations of the Bill of Rights? Does war ever violate the Bill of Rights--unless, of course, soldiers are stationed in houses?

Tell me how being national security hawks will violate the Bill of Rights in any manner whatsoever.

Tell me how being national security hawks will violate the Bill of Rights in any manner whatsoever.

The lessons of history, my friend. The lessons of history.

Each and every time this country has had a military conflict, there have been violations of the Bill of Rights, exactly as our founders warned us. Ever hear of COINTELPRO during the Vietnam War? How about the legislation during WWI that made any criticism of the war effort a federal offense, one for which Eugene Debs was sentenced to 10 years in prison?

Similar things did not largely occur during WWII, simply because the country was pretty unified on that one. However, Truman instituted the "loyalty oaths" after WWII and then came the McCarthy witch hunts.

National security has been used as a pretext for curbing civil liberties throughout our nation's history. And each time we give some away, there are parts we never get back.

Nothing happening during WWII? Some Japanese might disagree with that.

Claiming 'some people have violated the bill of rights during some wars' is not automatically a valid disagreement with the concept of war. I might as well claim that because drunk driving rates have increased with automobile ownership, then Ford is clearly run by bloodthirsty murderers in cahoots with the alcohol industry intent on increasing drunk driving rates. I might also claim that because when there are computers in a household, the chance that large amounts of child pornography exists in the household is increased immeasurably, and therefore computers must be done away with because computers are clearly a pretext for child pornography.

And while I'm at it, there have certainly been restrictions on freedoms without warfare--we were not 'at war' during McCarthy, who created an enemy to exploit. War had nothing to do with it when the moral majority began its '80s push to censor anything and everything ungodly. The way I see it, since Hitler first showed the power of modern propaganda, politicians have been constantly using any excuse, war or peace, to restrict freedoms of thought. Can you prove that restrictions during war are statistically greater than restrictions during peace?

You're right regarding the Japanese and WWII. However, that was a policy aimed primarily at one cultural/ethnic group rather than a general trend in the country.

Your next paragraph is comparing apples to oranges. I fail completely to see how any of these comparisons are valid.

WRT McCarthyism, it was a direct by-product of the Cold War. Everything about it was the enforcement of conformity and elimination of dissent by equating non-conformity and dissent with the "evils of communism". The Cold War may not have been a shooting war, but the existance of the "enemy" was enough to propel the curtailment of civil liberties.

As for the Moral Majority, it was largely a backlash to the frenetic changes of the 1960's. It was one of the first manifestations on a national level of the grassroots organizing that took place in conservative circles as a reaction to what was perceived as the hedonism and overpermissiveness of that time.

Politicians have ALWAYS been using any excuse to reduce freedom of thought, but war has always provided the best vehicle. That's why Hitler seized the Reichstag fire as an excuse to eliminate most remaining civil liberties for Germans -- because the identification of a possible "enemy in their midst" provided the perfect foil for achieving his goals.

People are always less likely to dissent or protest the loss of their liberties if they're afraid. There's no better way to keep them afraid than by telling them over and over again that they have "enemies" to be afraid of -- much like the Bush administration and 9/11.

Clinton, Edwards? WTF? I can't make any more of a comment than that right now. I'm dumbfounded.