When did we become about "spreading Democracy", not self defense?

I am all for defending our nation. I have not a doubt that all of us are. I just wondered when it morphed from national security to "spreading Democracy." It is not just the Republicans.

Here are Bruce Reed's almost exact words from his interview on CNN yesterday:

He said almost these words: "We (Democrats) need to put forth our own plan for spreading Democracy around the world. We need to decide which countries we would be willing to use military force against."
(I taped it and can recheck if anyone wishes.)

He is the president of the DLC. I know of their philosophy of progressive internationalism, but this is the first time I have heard it blatantly said by a Democrat. That is Bushspeak..."spreading Democracy."

And a little more here today in this article:
http://www.ndol.org/ndol_ci.cfm?kaid=450004&subid=900020&contentid=253152

SNIP.."To persuade the public to entrust us with national leadership, Democrats must offer a more compelling vision for making Americans safer. We believe such a vision must incorporate key pillars of the party's internationalist tradition: the willingness to use force to defend our interests and values; support for open trade and a globalizing world economy; and active promotion of individual liberty and democracy around the world. We recognize that these are contentious issues and that some will want to paper over our internal differences to preserve a semblance of party unity. But we believe Democrats should not fear a vigorous, honest debate on national security -- better to wrestle these issues now than on the eve of the 2008 election."

The above was signed by:
Sen. Evan Bayh
Rep. Jim Cooper
Rep. Artur Davis
Rep. Adam B. Schiff
Rep. Ellen Tauscher
Ronald D. Asmus
James R. Blaker
Larry Diamond
Philip H. Gordon
Edward Gresser
Bob Kerrey
Rachel Kleinfeld
Will Marshall
Michael McFaul
Steven J. Nider
Jeremy Rosner
James P. Rubin

IMHO, this sounds like more than defense of America. We have not been doing that well so far. It does sound nicer than what Bush has done, but yes, they are right....they are "contentious issues."

It doesn't have to always involve war, but we Dems have a better track record than the Repubs.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

...after WW II during the Cold War, when there were competing ideologies in the world of Communism vs. Captitalism. Then it morphed into spreading Democracy.

It's an after-the-fact justification for the Iraq invasion when the WMDs didn't materialize and it became obvious that evil ol' Saddam was never a threat to the U.S. With the defense justification out the window, Bushlet had to come up with something else. "Hmmmm... what should it be? Hey, I got it! We'll spread Democracy(tm) to the Middle East! Yeah, That's it! Who can possibly object to democracy?" Well, nobody. Except for this: What the Bush Regime defines as a "democratic" Middle Eastern government is simply one that is either friendly to U.S. interests (e.g., Saudi Arabia), or a U.S. puppet. Does anybody seriously believe that either Iraq or Afghanistan (or Lebanon) are anywhere near being a true democracy? For that matter, the U.S. isn't a democracy any more either; and that fact alone proves Bush doesn't give a damn about real democracy. It's all bullshit. And the Democrats shouldn't buy into any of it.

In every area. The fact that we support Saudi Arabia who is totally hostile to women's rights or the fact that we bombed Iraq who never harmed us shows there is no sense to the Bush doctrine.

It's all about cover up and corporate greed.

When everyone realized Bush lied about WMD and Rove needed a new excuse for Iraq.

... and the "communist scare." Democrats and Repugs alike have fostered a military and intelligence services which are essentially offensive in nature. Remember that the current neo-cons received their tutelage under "Scoop" Jackson of Washington state, who was perceived as being the arch-hawk of the Democrats.

That situation has only gotten worse over time. No one in the House or the Senate significantly challenges the military-intelligence-industrial complex without having their candidacy threatened (usually, first, by threatening jobs in their district).

What you have above is just a DLC/Wall Street consortium to press a Democratic version of Bush's imperial ambitions.

Cheers.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

... the latest troll's attempt at erudition.

How sad. :P

The mainstream old Dems somehow think Bush won the election. They actually think the way to win is to become just like the Republicans.

We must deny Gays equal rights based on supersition, allow the pharmacists to follow their "conscience" instead of the law, we must speak just like they do and talk like they do.

And with this, they are talking the exact wordage of the proaganda masters and saying they must excel at it! Amazing.

Spreading liberty and letting America slip into a third world mockery of a Democracy.

How about jobs? How about fiscal responsiblity? How about Bin Laden's head on a platter? Again-let's say the truth, the majority of Americans don't give a crap about LEBANON. It's propaganda. They need a job. Which is why most of them join the army in the first place-A JOB.

Spreading liberty?????? That's code speak for Bush doing whatever he wants and lying about it.

I will not speak the language of the enemy. And maybe when they realize the Republicans are the enemy and we don't want to be the enemy then we can fight the enemy.

. . . we'd probably still be in Vietnam.

They do not represent Democratic values, and they are only destroying our party.

:nuke:

These folks are the heirs to the true Democratic tradition of tough yet smart liberal internationalism...

Jimmy Carter, 1980 SOTU speech

The region which is now threatened by Soviet troops in Afghanistan is of great strategic importance: It contains more than two-thirds of the world's exportable oil. The Soviet effort to dominate Afghanistan has brought Soviet military forces to within 300 miles of the Indian Ocean and close to the Straits of Hormuz, a waterway through which most of the world's oil must flow. The Soviet Union is now attempting to consolidate a strategic position, therefore, that poses a grave threat to the free movement of Middle East oil.

This situation demands careful thought, steady nerves, and resolute action, not only for this year but for many years to come. It demands collective efforts to meet this new threat to security in the Persian Gulf and in Southwest Asia. It demands the participation of all those who rely on oil from the Middle East and who are concerned with global peace and stability. And it demands consultation and close cooperation with countries in the area which might be threatened.

Meeting this challenge will take national will, diplomatic and political wisdom, economic sacrifice, and, of course, military capability. We must call on the best that is in us to preserve the security of this crucial region.

Let our position be absolutely clear: An attempt by any outside force to gain control of the Persian Gulf region will be regarded as an assault on the vital interests of the United States of America, and such an assault will be repelled by any means necessary, including military force.



JFK, Inaugural Address

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 to assure the survival and the success of liberty.




JFK, speech to the United Nations, 9/25/61

The Western Powers have calmly resolved to defend, by whatever means are forced upon them, their obligations and their access to the free citizens of West Berlin and the self-determination of those citizens. This generation learned from bitter experience that either brandishing or yielding to threats can only lead to war. But firmness and reason can lead to the kind of peaceful solution in which my country profoundly believes.

We are committed to no rigid formula. We see no perfect solution. We recognize that troops and tanks can, for a time, keep a nation divided against its will, however unwise that policy may seem to us. But we believe a peaceful agreement is possible which protects the freedom of West Berlin and allied presence and access, while recognizing the historic and legitimate interests of others in insuring European security.

Resources/oil. that's the name of the game. always has been.

spreading democracy now.

It is maintaining America as the sole super-power. We have to control the oil, so we can control the burgeoning economies of China and India.

It's PNAC's pax americana.

'We're an empire now, and we create our own reality.'

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

Iraq was obviously a total sham, no one would have supported invading Iraq to "spread Democracy", but after the fact, with no WMD found, it's the best Bush could come up with.

But the Democratic Party was always more internationalist oriented than Republicans throughout most of the 20th Century. The United Nations was established under a Democratic Administration. Democrats have always had foreign policy goals slightly more expansive than narrowly defined National Defense. It has been Democrats who cared most about global environmental threats, to cite a recent example.

Jimmy Carter made a big deal out of defending Human Rights, which was scoffed at by Republicans at the time. Progressive Democrats have always cared more about the lives of average people outside of our nation more than Republicans. Leftists made up the Lincoln brigade fighting Franco in Spain before World War II. We are the ones who fought against Apartheid in South Africa. It has been the left not the right who have supported American involvement in U.N. Peace keeping forces. For the most part Leftists were concerned about the genocide in Rwanda, not Rightists. We were the ones who wanted the Coup in Haiti reversed and Aristide returned to the Presidency there. Traditionally, it has been the left that has spoken out on behalf of women as oppressed world wide.

So what should a Democratic Foreign policy look like, beyond not invading countries that are not physically threatening us? This is an honest question. I never trust the Republican Party's international intentions, but I for one was Pro Solidarity in Poland when it rose up against the Soviet Union. What would be a positive role for America to play in the world? The simple phrase "supporting Democracy" is a value I can identify with. The Devil is in the details, how "support" is defined, how democracy is defined, and where the lines of American involvement get drawn, by whom and why.

A more assertive version of the old British policy of splendid isolation. The British version involved being permanently on the weaker side of any coalition that sought to prevent domination of the continent by one or more powers. An American version would be more involved from the beginning, not just as a balancer in wartime. The goal would be to serve as a de facto balancer and arbitrator in the major industrial regions of the globe. In doing this, the US would seek to prevent the domination of any major region by a single power...though this is iffy. It could also be applied to a concert of powers if, for example, an assertive France and Germany acted together to dominate the smaller states of Europe. In essence, this would also be similar to the old freedom of the seas policy from the late 19th/early 20th century.

The goal isn't to dominate the world. It's just to prevent anybody else from doing it.

Much appreciated. The way I view the world, the simple act of working inside the Democratic Party implies acknowledging very deep and fundamental compromises about what goals are achievable in the near to intermediate term relative to my own ideals. At my core I am probably closer to being a 19th century version Wobblie than anything today's Democratic Party is likely to embrace. This is not the United States of America that I would like it to be, but it is the one we find ourselves in.

You take the world as it is and do what you can with it.

On a side note, time to go look up Wobbly on wikipedia. I seem to disremember that.

I am not sure any more what battles we have to fight, since neither party now is especially known for candor in this area.

I think the lies about Iraq will come back to haunt us in the future.

And the blood is on the hands of both parties.

Another one down the memory hole.

I found this short bit somewhere, either Cliff notes or a Classic Notes site. It so describes this world now.

SNIP..."Oceania is a totalitarian state dominated by the principles of Ingsoc (English Socialism) and ruled by an ominous organization known simply as the Party. Oceania and the two other world superstates, Eurasia and Eastasia, are involved in a continuous war over the remaining world, and constantly shift alliances. As the novel progresses, it becomes clear that the war is largely an illusion, and that the three superstates maintain this illusion for their mutual benefit. It serves their shared purpose of holding onto absolute power over their respective peoples. Much of the warfare, in fact, is inflicted by these governments upon their own citizens...."

Sadly.

It's enough to both protect and advance American interests without having to go on some damnfool crusade to give good government to foreigners.

their own governments?

That goes hand in hand with being a sovereign state :P

They are not imposed. And inside the human heart is where the impetus for political change must be generated.

<snip>

Seeking to intervene and essentially impose a democracy on a country without real democratic traditions or the foundations of a pluralist society is not only risky, it is also inherently self-contradictory. All experience suggests that democracy doesn't grow like this. But we are where we are, and we must pull together to try to help this project succeed.

<snip>

And in the long term, we must draw down U.S. troops. A massive American military presence in the heart of the Middle East, after all, can only increase support for terrorism and undercut the position of indigenous pro-Western reformers.

<snip>

We can't know precisely how the desire for freedom among the peoples of the Middle East will grow and evolve into movements that result in stable democratic governments. Different countries may take different paths. Progress may come from a beneficent king, from enlightened mullahs, from a secular military, from a women's movement, from workers returning from years spent as immigrants in Western Europe, from privileged sons of oil barons raised on MTV, or from an increasingly educated urban intelligentsia, such as the nascent one in Iran. But if the events of the last year tell us anything, it is that democracy in the Middle East is unlikely to come at the point of our gun. And Ronald Reagan would have known better than to try.

http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/features/2004/0405.clark.html

Clark was in Washington yesterday, and will be part of the new National Security Group. I do hope the Democratic Party carefully considers his advice in the formulation of policy...

Spotted on Capitol Hill yesterday: Wes Clark, speaking, according to a source who was there, to a standing-room-only gathering of Democratic Senate staffers with a national security bent. Clark gave an upbeat account of the Party's fight to forge policy alternatives to President Bush's plans. He urged Democrats to stop talking about exit strategies and timelines and focus on how to win in Iraq.

He also joined Leaders Reid and Pelosi for a closed-door meeting of their newly announced National Security Advisory Group, including bold-faced names Perry and Albright.

They frame this as an early, early, early look at the '08 field which is very Note of them. The important thing here, though, is less that Wesley Clark was on the Hill than that his appearance attracted a standing-room-only gathering of Democratic Senate staffers eager to here what he had to say. This seems to indicate to me that the National Security Advisory Group concept will actually go somewhere, with its members actually doing stuff, and staffers and legislators actually paying some attention. Ezra Klein is right to say that the politics of security are largely about image (the politics of everything are), but the important thing to note is that you can't just whip up some issues and an "image" cooked to order when it comes time to run a presidential campaign. You need to have some idea of what it is you're trying to market, and some experience with various people actually trying to market it. And perhaps most important of all, one key element of "image" is not looking uncomfortable discussing these topics, and one easy way to do that is to actually be comfortable and confident that you know what you're talking about and understand where you want to take the country.

March 15, 2005 | Permalink

http://yglesias.typepad.com/matthew/2005/03/signs_of_li...