The Truman Project Posted by Michael Signer

So, all last weekend I was at the annual meeting in D.C.  of the Truman National Security Project (website here) -- an extraordinary new group of young people who want the Democratic Party to reclaim strength on national security and foreign policy as a basic progressive value.  (I recently became a Principal of the  Truman Project, along with Truman Fellows Suzanne, Lorelei, and Derek, an affiliation which led indirectly to my place here at Democracy Arsenal.) 

The meeting was off the record, and I wouldn't want in any event to try and represent the opinions of this diverse and intellectually vibrant group.  But I can present some of the general conclusions of the group. 

The combined group of about 35 came from all walks of the foreign policy world -- from academics working on the Middle East to lawyers at prominent law firms to former White House speechwriters.   You can see some of their bios here.

The Project was co-founded by Rachel Kleinfeld and Matt Spence, two off-the-chart impressive foreign policy thinkers, who were both Truman Scholars (though there is no affiliation between the Scholarship program and the Truman Project -- rather, they chose the name because President Truman transformed his battle against the threat of communism into a broad strategy to secure our country, while building international structures like NATO on American values of rights and freedom.  You can read more about the reasoning behind the name here.)

Given the current Administration, and the general ass-kicking progressives have suffered over the last 25 years, you might think this would have been a grumpy bitch'n'moan session, full of piss and bile about Vietnam and the neoconservatives.

It wasn't.

What both Kleinfeld and Spence shared, along with the group they had assembled,  was instead a buoyant, infectious  sense of optimism.

The meeting was dominated by a collective feeling that if progressives are to become, again, bearers of the public trust on national security, it will only happen through affirmative rather than negative ideas -- by talking about what we want, where America should be, why Americans should be comfortable and enthusiastic supporting a foreign policy channeled through progressives, rather than conservatives (or neoconservatives).

It was perhaps no coincidence that a lot of our discussion focused on superheroes as metaphors for the U.S.  -- whether Spiderman (we got a little punchy reciting Uncle Ben's  "with great power comes great responsibility") or Superman (we're a leader for the world, but we're still vulnerable -- Cheney as Kryptonite?  something like that).

I took away from the meeting a set of concepts that, for me, clarified enormously how progressives can take back security, if they scroll back time to Vietnam, and imagine taking another path -- one more like Truman and Kennedy would have taken, toward strength, wisdom, and confidence in America's role as leader for the world.

At least six values grounded our discussion, and showed how Truman Democrats improve on both the left and the right.  Our first three values share some similarity to principles currently claimed by neoconservatives:

1)  American exceptionalism:  Like the neoconservatives, we believe that America is the greatest country the world has known.  We are historically, morally, and intellectually unique.  Unlike the necons, however, we believe we must constantly earn our exceptionalism through our moral conduct.  Our uniqueness stems from our values, and so we bear a unique responsibility for living up to those values in shaping and influencing the world.

2)  The use of force:  Like the neocons, we're comfortable with the use of force for morally good ends.  Unlike the neocons, as a general matter, we believe force shouldn't be the default choice for achieving our ends.  We're neither reflexive doves nor pacifists; rather, we're pragmatists on the use of force.

3)  American hegemony:  Like the neocons, we want America to retain its supremacy as the military, political , and economic leader of the world in order that we can maintain our own security, help strengthen the world's safety and stability,  and accomplish morally right goals.  We are and should be a unipolar power.  Unlike the neocons, however, we believe we must constantly earn and affirm the right to exercise that power. 

But Truman Democrats also add three new principles of their own:

1)  The world community.  The traditionally conservative (rather than neocon, but still threaded through the current Administration's foreign policy) viewpoint borrows heavily from libertarian principles.  As a matter of right and obligation, conservatives often believe people are and should be fundamentally selfish and individualistic, and that collective action is wrong.  Truman Democrats believe, on the other hand, that the world is a community.  America can lead that community -- but, to paraphrase John Donne, we are not an island, and any death diminishes us, because we are involved in mankind.   To switch to a more prosaic metaphor, America is like a quarterback for the world.  Although he's the most critical member of the team, the quarterback can't win alone;  he needs the confidence and loyalty of his teammates, which he earns through leadership.

2)  Liberal-mindedness:  Neoconservatives believe that the discovery of ideas is basically finished.  That's why they constantly return to the ancient theorists and ancient values in search of some lost nobility and greatness.  Truman Democrats believe instead that knowledge is constantly expanding, and that to conclude that we have finished knowing, or that ideas are presumptively wrong because of where they come from, is both arrogant and dangerous.  We believe in a resilient, flexible national mind, avoiding the calcification of ideology.  We believe in learning from events and fitting our thinking to facts, not the other way around.  This is why democracy (which encourages the growth of knowledge) is our political system of choice.

3)  Helping the least well-off:  Conservatives and realpolitikers have generally believed that wealth and power should be the key determinants to foreign policy decisions regarding other countries.  Following philosophers like John Rawls, Truman Democrats believe we should instead help the least well-off before we help the most well-off.  So building up the economies in many developing nations, or addressing the AIDS crisis, is not only a matter of stability -- it's a matter of moral right.   Moreover, helping the least well-off also helps us.  Being the only wealthy house in a poor neighborhood makes us the target.  Helping the whole neighborhood become richer makes us a leader.

These six principles combine into the single center of gravity for Truman Democrats:  we believe in leadership, in inspiring the world community to follow us through our generosity, our values, and our accomplishments. 

The philosophy of leadership squares with the value placed by conservatives on American might and American wisdom.  But it departs from (and radically improves upon) the neoconservative vision by centering America in the world community. 

America must involve itself in the world, and, like an older sibling (OK, the metaphors did get a little out of control), take responsibility for lessons our brothers and sisters learn from us.

The meeting concluded on Sunday amid broad smiles and generous laughter from the members.  Strong friendships were created, in part because of the general enthusiasm about the seriousness of the task at hand.  We were in agreement:  we really could make a difference, by parting ways with the post-Vietnam left in America, in a way that could ultimately convince progressives, and America, to follow. 

The left, after all, liberated the world from Communism, created the Marshall Plan, negotiated our way out of the Cuban Missile Crisis, and invented NATO. 

America's greatest successes abroad are ours. 

We need to return to our roots -- and we can.

Comments

[rosignol]

But Truman Democrats also add three new principles of their own:

1) The world community. The traditionally conservative (rather than neocon, but still threaded through the current Administration's foreign policy) viewpoint borrows heavily from libertarian principles.

-----

Only superficially. Libertarian principles encourage maximizing the autonomy of individuals, the traditional conservative approach is to look after our interests first. This may seem libertarian (as libertarians generally think each individual should put that individual's interests first), but it's actually the same approach used by pretty much every government in human history.

-----

2) Liberal-mindedness: Neoconservatives believe that the discovery of ideas is basically finished. That's why they constantly return to the ancient theorists and ancient values in search of some lost nobility and greatness.

-----

This is wrong. Conservatives- not just the neo variety- look to ancient theories because they have been studied in tremendous depth, and those ideas have either withstood the test of time and been validated, or they been refuted and discarded. This has nothing to do with searching for lost nobility and greatness, and everything to do with finding things that _work_.

-----

3) Helping the least well-off: Conservatives and realpolitikers have generally believed that wealth and power should be the key determinants to foreign policy decisions regarding other countries.

-----

This, too, is incorrect. Conservatives and realpolitikers generally believe that our _interests_ should be the key determinants in foreign policy decisions.

I am delighted to see some signs that the left is returning to sanity, but quite disappointed to see that it has yet to understand the reasoning of the other side of the debate. To refute their ideas, you must analyze them, to analyze their ideas, you must _understand_ them. You are no closer to understanding them than Michael Moore and the like... but at least you are trying. That's progress, and as someone who appreciates the value of a viable competition to keep my own side honest, I welcome it.

[doc]

...rosignol's weirdly arrogant reply not only serves as an example of why the Truman Project is on the right track, it is also a tiny mirror of the attitude in the current administration - an attitude that Americans are finally waking up to…
(see http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/national/AP-Bush-Poll-Method.html).

[Tom E]

All well and good, except for the gratuitous slam on libertiarians.

Libertarians belive in minimal government for maxiumum liberty, which is not necessarily the same thing as selfishness.

[pohsite]

As a former Democrat I am glad to see some Democratic thinkers trying to regain some of the party's sensibilities.
I find it a little ironic, though, to criticize neoconservatives for looking to the past to define their values while you call yourselves the Truman National Security Project.

[Robichaud]

This is a promising project. One of the best pieces I've seen come out of it so far is Loren Griffen's analysis of how Democrats lost credibility on National Security--and how to they can reclaim it. It's definitely worth a read:

http://www.trumanproject.org/trumanpaper3.html

[Robichaud]

That should be 'Loren Griffith'

[Minh-Duc]

If more Democrats are talking like Michael Signer, then the Democrat may have a chance in 2006 and 2008. But I believe that his view is of the minority. Sadly, Michael Moore is much louder than Michael Signer.

[libertarian soldier]

I didn't find "rosignol's weirdly arrogant reply " either weird nor arrogant. Pointing out a fork isn't a spoon is simply the truth.

[Jeff Medcalf]

There is a voice of hope for the future! It may take the Truman Project 10 years to bear fruit (as it did for Goldwater's ideas to take over the Republican mind), and certainly there are a lot of distortions in the characterization of neo-conservatives in the post, but if our debate on foreign policy is to be a serious discussion of what underpins American exceptionalism (and thus how other countries can become exceptional, too), how we act morally and responsibly abroad without compromising our security and economy, and how to advance democracy in the world; where the major disagreements are on which tyrannies to end first, which wrongs we are morally obligated to end and which must be ended by those wronged, and how to advance technologically and culturally without descending into anarchy or tyranny - if that's the future foreign policy debate that the Truman Project can enable, more power to them.

[Vivek]

As a keen observer of the United States from that part of North America that chose to remain British, I take exception with your claim to American exceptionalism. There really is nothing exceptional about American foreign policy, from its hegemonic position atop the current international distribution of power, its preference for a liberal international economic order, or in its incessant evangelism (using force if necessary) of such benefits of American civilization as democracy, human rights, free markets, and minimally interventionist government. In each of these respects, 21st century America is a mirror of 19th century Britain -- the military, economic, and moral hegemon of its day -- with the exception pointed by Niall Ferguson that America is the first empire to deny that it is an empire.

[Escapist]

America - the greatest country the world has known? It's the greatest country YOU have known, obviously, but this smells a bit of elitism and nationalism. How different are we allowed to be from this immaculate US model and still be concidered a worthy team player? An attitude that is more understanding and accepting of different cultures, politics and mindsets (within the realm of democracy) would likely be seen as less arrogant.

[liberalhawk]

well if both the libertarians and the "antiimperialists" are attacking you, you must be doing something right.

I for one, think this an excellent idea, and look forward to hearing more.

[ulrich speck]

Interesting. But where is the difference to the Bush-project? I guess this ideas are very similar to the ideas of, lets say Condolezza Rice. It's hard to talk about "the neocons", as far as I see there are many different ways to be neocon.
As a German, I'm interested in the point "world community". The questions is, what do you mean by that? People from the left often think that you either go alone (with a coalition of the willing), which is bad, or you work with the UN, which is good. In my view, Washington should work with a world community which is not the five privileged powers of Security Council. There should be a world community of liberal democracies. A club that you can only enter if you are responsible to the people you govern. You have named John Rawls, I think his Law of the People goes in this direction.
What I had expected from the Bushies is that they would present their own version of a UN reform, something that goes in this direction. Unfortunately nothing has happend.
I think this is something Democrats could jump on: A new global architecture. If you are serious with the idea of working with the world community, you must admit that the Security Council is not the world community, and that in the General assembly you have too many governments like the killers who "govern" Sudan. When you look for a project, I guess there is one that is worth fighting for.
A last point: There is a great danger for a democratic FP: The idea that Europe is better, or is right. You don't have to side with Paris. French FP is disgusting. The use the international organizations for their profit, they work closely with African dictators and so on.
I guess America could and should take the lead. If there is a new democratic FP which is not based on the simple idea that American can do no good in the world, if you can overcome the old anti-imperialist paradigma (I guess people in Darfur would love imperialism), and if you are interested to work with others, this could become a great opportunity.

[BroD]

I could sign on to most of that--except the American hegemony crap. A determination to maintain eternal supremacy could very well conflict with the ultimate good of national security in which case it should be sacrificed.

[Alex]

Its nice to see that some Dems out there are actually willing to buck the current left's positions on Foreign Policy. However, I think your problem is that you are going to be very much in the minority within the left. I actually share almost all your views, but most of my liberal friends call me a neocon...

Today's left is not like the left that won the Cold War (that's almost as ridiculous a statement as people saying Ronald Reagan won it singlehandedly), or started the Marshall Plan, or almost started a nuclear war (oh, sorry, I mean "negotiated" its way out of it - sorry, couldn't resist), or started Nato. FDR, Truman and JFK would not recognize the Democratic party as it stands today and, unfortunately, I doubt that your views will be very much welcomed by the core of the party.

Frankly, your views are closer to the Bush "doctrine" than they are to the Howard Dean - Harry Reid - Barbara Boxer - Michael Moore nexus.

[Greg Priddy]

I agree with the vast majority of the Truman Democrats' platform -- Democrats do need to convince the public that we're going to defend them from those who would do us harm, particularly in the War on Terrorism. We need to dissociate the Democratic party in the public mind from kneejerk pacifism and anti-miltary sentiments.

What gives me a bit of pause, though, is the emphasis on American exceptionalism, which can, if taken too far, lead to the sort of naivite which convinced the neoconservatives, to cite one concrete example, that Iraqis would want to build an "American-style" democracy, rather than an Islamic democracy reflective of their own values.

There is a dangerous tendency, both among neoconservatives and progressives of the Truman sort, to project their own thinking onto the people they want to help. What would *I* feel if *I* were an Iraqi or an Egyptian? -- rather than trying to ascertain what *they* feel and what *their* goals are. A good example of this is a post by Suzanne Nossel a while back, in which she seemed to assume that the Kifaya ('enough!') movement in Egypt was inspired by what we're doing in Iraq. There *was* a causal relationship, but it was largely due to anger among ordinary Egyptians about American occupation of Iraq, not hope. One slogan frequently chanted at Kifaya demonstrations has been "Hosni, how much did they [Americans] pay you to sell Egypt?" -- i.e. anger at what they perceive as the Mubarak regime's failure to defend Arab interests, as they see them, from Bush and Sharon. She's right that one needs to understand the Arab world's 'prism of pain' to understand how they see things, but she attributes that to being abused by the despotic Mubarak regime -- that's obviously a large part of it, but that view leaves aside the overwhelming sense in the Arab world (rightly or wrongly) that they are the victims of outside encroachments -- the stuff they watch on al-Jazeera every night from Ramallah, Gaza City, Baghdad, etc. The neoconservatives think that democracy and prosperity in the Arab world will make this sense of victimhood go away -- but they're mistaken, as almost anyone who has spent much time living there could tell you. Everywhere you go in Cairo, you see pictures of the Dome of the Rock -- it's clear what's important to them.

There's also a tendency to assume that democratization always leads to adoption of a uniform set of values -- Western/American values. If we're serious about promoting democracy in the Arab world (and I think we should be, by non-military means, and with a realistic timeline), we need to jettison that sort of thinking. Americans have a weakness for latching onto liberal public figures we like, Ayman Nour and his Ghad (Tomorrow) party in Egypt for example, and imagining that they have much more public support than they actually do. Saad Eddin Ibrahim is right to call for inclusion of moderate Islamists in democratic elections, since they are the ones who actually have majority support from the public. In addition, while I think it unfortunate, it's pretty clear that gender equality would not be advanced, at least in the short term, by democratization in the Arab world -- again, this is something many well-meaning American progressives seem to assume. The Mubarak era laws granting women the right to initiate a divorce, for example, are highly unpopular in Egypt, and would almost certainly be repealed by a democratically-elected parliament.

I do think promoting positive political change in the Middle East is in our interest, but American progressives need to go into it with our eyes open, understanding the magnitude of the challenges we face, and the realities of the sharply different views of the vast majority of the population in that part of the world.

Again, I think there is a lot to agree with in the ideas oulined here, but I'm very uneasy with what I would argue is the Truman Democrats' buying into the neoconservatives oversimplification of, and naivite about, these issues, particularly in the Middle East. There seems to be an assumption that if our motives are pure and our principles are right, we will succeed, without an attempt to understand what the people we want to assist think, and how they will perceive our efforts.

[Full disclosure -- I have an academic background in Middle East Studies and have lived in Egypt as a student, and travelled there since then. I currently work on energy security issues related to the region, so I follow developments there in a good deal of detail.]

[Cal]

---We are and should be a unipolar power.--

I'd like to know how you plan to maintain this. If China or India attain even half our per capita GDP, they will have an economy double the size of ours. It is inevitable that our unipolar moment will fade, and trying to hang on to it too strongly will simply hasten our decline.

---The meeting concluded on Sunday amid broad smiles and generous laughter from the members... we really could make a difference, by parting ways with the post-Vietnam left in America---

Well guess what, by breaking the Army and leading us into Iraq, the liberal hawks/neocons have ensured that no American is going to be following them anywhere anytime soon. Nor should they.

[Anthony Greco]

"..the greatest country the world has known...historically, morally and intellectually unique." America certainly has a unique role to play in the world. But your claim, clearly, is not merely of uniqueness, but of moral, etc. superiority. Now if you are making this claim as a matter of faith, I can't argue with you, any more than I can argue with the proposition that life begins at conception. But if you purport to base this claim on reality, I would like to see some evidence and argument, since there is a mountain of historical evidence against it (Vietnam, subversion of democratically elected governments and support for brutal dictators around the world, etc. etc.). Liberals these days are proudly proclaiming themselves reality-based, but hyperpatriotic mythology is incompatible with a reality-based foreign policy.

[Lane Brody]

Good luck. I should like to offer one practical piece of advice. The Democratic party will never get back leadership in military affairs untill it strongly argues in favor of, campaigns nationally for, and implements greater military spending than the Republican party. JFK ran to the right of the Rebublicans in 1960 (missle gap). The majority of the party has to feel a little angry that not enough is being spent on defense.

For most people within and without the Democratic party stands for less spending on the military and more on social programs. Moreover, the "left" has a very strong pacifist base. As the person from Germany noted the UN is not a democratic institution yet much of the left, in the US and Europe, seems to have UN approval as a pre-req for any action- even to the point of stating action without UN approval is always by definition illegal.

One can agree with what you and others say is needed to bring trust back to the Democratic party on these matters but you are now talking a fundamental shift in the base of the party. Howard Dean is not about to implement these policies

On a practical level there are very very few Dems left in national office that would support your views. Most of the southern conservative, pro-defense, Democrats are gone. Some have even wrote books about the party leaving them behind. Where are the Sam Nunns's of the party anymore?

Lane Brody

[David Billington]

The last five points raise the following questions.

2) The use of force:

This is always defined in relation to specific situations or problems. It would be useful to know how Truman Democrats would deal with nuclear proliferation.

3) We are and should be a unipolar power.

The question here is under what conditions the United States should offer to share missile defense with non-traditional allies and after what changes present adversaries might also be eligible to join.

4) The world community

The problem is what to do when nations disagree. Before reaching the point of unbridgeable difference, our side must always ask what sacrifices we can propose that others could and would make if we agreed to make them too.

5) We believe in learning from events and fitting our thinking to facts, not the other way around.

The problem is determining what to regard as facts. Republicans and Democrats will simply talk past each other if they disagree as to these. A better approach would be to demand of thinkers in both parties a clearer distinction of the means and ends of foreign policy and national security, so that the appropriateness of means to ends and the adequacy of ends can be the focus of debate.

6) Truman Democrats believe we should instead help the least well-off before we help the most well-off.

The problem here is the reverse of the problem so many Americans have of needing to lose weight - how to help the world's poor gain weight. But the deeper challenge is the same - how to maintain the desired weight. We need to design our policy to emphasize sustaining whatever improvement our assistance makes possible.

Overall, the points raised by the Truman Democrats converge on the kinds of problems that are basic to what Democrats need to debate. But there is also a need to define positions, not in relation to what the other party says and does, but in relation to the kind of world the thinkers themselves would like to see.

[Teaser]

OK "Truman Democrats" let's talk turkey. I want to know where you were on the Iraq war. Are you among the clowns that told those of us opposed to igniting a quagmire in Iraq that we were unserious about foreign policy? If you were not, please disabuse me of the suspicioun. My gut tells me that many of you would have supported this shitty little war, but I don't know enough about you, other than the sheer condescending arrogance of your bullet points, to make any judgements about your organization?

Am I sounding harsh and unreceptive, well I am, because
I am sick to death of neocon wannabes lecturing the rest of us Democrats that we aren't "serious." So let's turn the tables a little bit. How about if you want anyone to take you seriously, you tell us that the Iraq war was wrong. If you supported it, how about apologizing to those of us who opposed it and *were right to do so*?

So many contemptible liberal hawks have thrown around human lives like they were toys, and I want to see that you aren't among them, or if you were, that you are honestly sorry for it. Until I see that you aren't what I suspect you may be, I'll have to let this post (http://tinyurl.com/7wba8) at the tpmcafe express my assessment of you as likely wannabeocons.

[Teaser]

Oh...and American Hegemony? Jesus you wannabeocons never learn do you. I can't wait till history writes you off.

[rosignol]

"..the greatest country the world has known...historically, morally and intellectually unique." America certainly has a unique role to play in the world. But your claim, clearly, is not merely of uniqueness, but of moral, etc. superiority. Now if you are making this claim as a matter of faith, I can't argue with you, any more than I can argue with the proposition that life begins at conception. But if you purport to base this claim on reality, I would like to see some evidence and argument, since there is a mountain of historical evidence against it (Vietnam, subversion of democratically elected governments and support for brutal dictators around the world, etc. etc.). Liberals these days are proudly proclaiming themselves reality-based, but hyperpatriotic mythology is incompatible with a reality-based foreign policy.
-Anthony Greco

-----

It helps to keep in mind that when such claims are made, the USA is not being compared to some utopia, or to nations that offend few and are of little consequence. What the USA is being compared to are the great powers of history such as the Soviet Union, France, Great Britain, China, Germany, Japan, and so on- nations that have done plenty to offend, and that few would argue are of little consequence.

When compared to such nations, and thinking of those nation's behavior when they were truly a great power, instead of what they are now, the US comes off rather well.

Open a history book and see for yourself.

[Julie Maupin]

Another Trumanite’s View

I too am a principal member of the Truman National Security Project. I’m also a member of its Board of Directors. I’m delighted to see that Mike Signer’s post about the Truman Project’s recent annual meeting has spurred a great deal of heated discussion. Unfortunately, it also seems to have perpetuated a few misperceptions, two of which I’d like to dispel now:

First, as Mike pointed out, the Truman Project was conceived as a values-based organization. Our values are at their core Democratic values. We are not confused, young pups who haven’t yet recognized our true inner Republican. Instead, we are staunch Democrats who firmly believe that our party’s foreign policy should emanate from the very values that make us Democrats – including justice, progress, and opportunity. We also believe that a values-based Democratic foreign policy can simultaneously advance the interests of the American people and make the world a better place. Moreover, we believe the American voters think so too, and that they will proactively embrace such a foreign policy if we communicate it to them in a thoughtful and sensible way.

That’s why the very first official document the Truman Project’s founders produced was a plain-English, one-page summary of our values (available at www.trumanproject.org/values.html ). These values are: 1) democracy and freedom, 2) robust military and intelligence capabilities, 3) strong alliances, 4) legitimate international behavior, 5) free trade, 6) promoting development abroad, and 7) comprehensive policy coordination.

Though our members come from diverse backgrounds and hold a range of specific viewpoints on hundreds of individual policy issues, every single one of us lines up behind these seven values. That alone sets us apart from most other Democratic groups. And we think it positions us well to help the Democratic Party face down its formidable Republican foes in the coming rounds of what will continue to be a very fierce battle for the trust of the American electorate on national security issues.

This brings me to my second point. Mike is right to highlight a common theme that underlies all seven of our values: Truman Democrats are not ashamed of American power, nor would we hesitate to use it to its utmost advantage in order to promote our national interests in accordance with these values.

However, a quick glance at the Truman Project’s seven stated values will reveal that neither “hegemony” nor “exceptionalism” is mentioned anywhere among them. This was intentional. I therefore respectfully part company with some of the views Mike characterized as Truman Project principles in his post.

There are those among us, myself included, who strongly believe that hegemony is a misguided conception of American power. For reasons of both content (it distorts genuine leadership) and rhetoric (it violates the plain-English rule), I would personally prefer to see Democrats dump “hegemony” altogether. I explicitly said as much when Principals of the Truman Project met in Washington earlier this month.

While I find exceptionalism less offensive as a concept, I still find the word itself too jargony to be useful when it comes to changing the American public’s negative perception of the Democratic Party’s national security credentials. Americans believe our nation is great and powerful and should remain so indefinitely. But talk of “exceptionalism” does little to convince my grandfather in Ohio that Democrats share that sentiment.

In short, Mike’s post fleshed out some key Truman Democratic ideals, and I’m grateful to him for provoking such thoughtful debate on the proper use of American power. Clearly, it’s a timely debate, a fiery debate, and a defining debate for our country and our party. Within this debate, the Truman National Security Project comes down strongly in favor of the principled and unabashed projection of American power. But when it comes to Mike’s endorsement of hegemony and exceptionalism as paradigms for that power, we don’t necessarily all agree.

Just thought I’d offer another Trumanite’s view…

Julie Maupin
Board Member
Truman National Security Project

[wow gold]

I like to earn the World of Warcraft Gold very much, I want to have a lot of warcraft gold in the game, i do not satisfy the old equipment and so i have to buy wow gold to buy the new equipment to make me strong. If i am very strong in the game i can get some cheap wow gold as the rewards in the game. So i like the game very much.