When Liberals Sound like Neo-Cons Posted by Shadi Hamid

I think Marc, in his latest post, has gotten to the root of the Democrats’ problems on national security:

What concerns me is the increasing tendency among liberals (of all stripes) to confuse taking a security threat (or a moral travesty) seriously, with advocating an armed response to that threat.  The Bush Administration has already stolen democracy promotion and a moral foreign policy from liberals.  Has it now taken ownership of the ability to assess threats to American security

What we’ve been doing too much of and for too long is letting conservatives define the terms of the debate. We have to go on the offensive and reclaim what was once ours but has now been taken away.

A couple weeks ago, a few of us were discussing US foreign policy. I started going off on neo-conservatives. Someone interrupted and said “wait, you’re not a neo-con?” At first I thought she was joking. But she wasn’t. She really thought I was. Why? Because I talk about democracy promotion a lot and I sometimes use explicitly moralistic language when doing so. It’s irritating, tiresome, and it bores me to have to start my arguments with a disclaimer (I’m not a freaking neo-con. I’m a liberal and damn proud of it).

So I know what Marc’s talking about and I sympathize with his frustration. The neo-cons (and Republicans in general) act as if they have a monopoly on morality, democracy promotion, and whatever else. And, too often, progressives run away, scared and disillusioned, accepting the terms of the discourse. Well, that’s got to end.

With that said, let me hedge a bit. And I know Marc will jump on me for this. I didn’t like the way he phrased the Iran security threat in his Democratic Strategist article:

If any issue should arouse the passion of Democrats, it is the spread of nuclear weapons to a radical Iranian government. Iran is a nation that stones women, publicly executes homosexuals, suppresses its minorities, and has violated the most basic human rights we fight for as Democrats. Allowing Iran to build a nuclear weapon would strengthen this government's hand against their own people. And nuclear proliferation--which would spread from Iran to the rest of the region--poses the greatest human rights abuse of all: threatening to destroy millions of lives in a war or a nuclear accident.

It just makes me feel uncomfortable. It sounds a bit too… ummm…Manichean? Marc and I talked about this earlier and he pushed me to explain what I thought was problematic with his choice of words. And I’ll say the same thing I said then: I’m not entirely sure: I just don’t feel entirely comfortable with that kind of rhetoric.

To be frank, sometimes I look back at the language I use in my own articles and I wonder if I go too far. For example, a couple months ago I wrote the following in the American Prospect:

We do indeed have a story to tell, and it is this: America will close, finally, the longstanding gap between words and deeds; we will, today, wage a war on the twin perils of tyranny and terrorism; and we will not stop until we have won.”

I stand by my phrasing here. However, I can fully understand why it makes progressives uncomfortable. The question is: should it?

Comments

[MarvToler]

Yes it makes me uncomfortable. When you say "wage a war on the twin perils of tyranny and terrorism" you are asking for a blank check. Who's a tyrant? Who's a terrorist? How do we define "victory". Who gets to define all those terms? What kind of war? Sorry, but this kind of language reminds me of charlatans who are trying to dupe people into allowing them to do things people would not ordinarily agree to. Politicians have debased the word "war" to the point it's meaningless. War on poverty? War on drugs? War on tyranny? Even our invasion of Iraq was just a three week war. The last 3 years have been an occupation.

[Greg Sanders]

A potential problem with your quote is the use of the word 'war.' The use of the term war has expanded to include non-military or pseudo-military struggles most notably the war on drugs. To a lesser extent, the Cold War muddied the waters since military confrontation tended to only be through proxies by one side or the other. When neo-cons say war, they tend to mean it. If they aren't calling for direct military action, they at very least are calling for a military mindset.

I support foreign policy liberalism and democracy promotion. But I think we may be well served by avoiding the use of the word 'war' unless we think a military mindset is the appropriate solution to the problem.

[Greg Sanders]

As a side note in response to the first comment, I am comfortable with the use of the terms tyranny and terrorism. I think Mr. Hamid tends to be clear and consistent with his use of those terms. It may be that we sometimes do better to argue what we are for rather than what we are against, but that's a secondary consideration. By comparison, 'war' is troublesome when we don't mean military action such as outright battles, occupation, counter-insurgency, or the like.

[Don Bacon]

You sound like a neocon to me, too.

From the Project for a New American Century:
". . . a military that is strong and ready to meet both present and future challenges; a foreign policy that boldly and purposefully promotes American principles abroad; and national leadership that accepts the United States' global responsibilities."

Where do you differ from that?

[J Thomas]

Shadi, yes, it should make you uncomfortable.

For a lot of people, the way they can tell you're serious is whether you're willing to kill for your beliefs. Progressives who want to talk to people and understand them are by definition not serious.

If you look for a way to compromise with your enemies, they will walk all over you. Why should they have any respect for you if you aren't ready to kill them?

Republicans have shown this repeatedly. Progressives try to negotiate with them and they walk all over us. The claim is -- these people will not protect you from America's enemies. They can't even protect themselves from us. We are bullies, we will bully your enemies the like we bully Democrats. We will make your enemies afraid of us. Progressives would your enemies do whatever they want, just like they let us do whatever we want."

So OK. You have to stand solidly for something that others can get behind and support. You have to be uncompromising about the important things.

And you have to listen to other points of view and find out whether they can be compatible with your stand. If they're orthogonal to you or off at a skew angle then OK, no big problem, respect them. If they're against you then you oppose them resolutely.

Republicans have come out against the Constitution. They have come out against the middle class. They have come out for torture and for preventive war. If you don't oppose them effectively, what good are you?

Republicans fight dirty. You don't have to fight dirty in response, but if you don't you have to win without fighting dirty. You can't be civil and ignore them. People don't want an upstanding moral leader who loses to trickery and dirty fighting.

People talk like Democrats have a majority in both houses now. But we haven't really seen it inaction. How many democratic legislators do republicans have blackmail material on? Remember Foley? A republican who often voted against the republican party line. But they could depend on him to vote right when it counted. Were they blackmailing him all along? We need for all elected and employed government agents to take an oath that they will resign rather than let blackmail interfere with their duties. It wouldn't solve the problem, but it would at least highlight this republican (and soviet and israeli etc) tactic.

Progressives value civility. We like to speak politely to dictators and conmen and thieves etc. We need a way to do this with more finesse. That can start with publicly talking to republican legislators who are known liars and thieves with -- what's the word? -- nuance, that's it. "Yes, you are a known liar and a known thief and I'm going to politely work with you right up until the investigation and sentencing are complete. And I'll be polite after that too. I'm polite to known liars and thieves, apart from doubting what they say and checking my wallet and calling them liars and thieves."

You need your own language to describe your noble goals. If people can't tell you apart from neocons then why would they prefer you to neocons?

"Interventionist" has become the wrong word. "Interventionism" now *means* "sending the army in to make foreigners do what we want". If you want a tool that isn't so blunt, find a name for it.

[Don Bacon]

As a point of reference, here's the Vision of the Progressive Democrats of America:

"We are committed in word and action, both personally and politically, to justice and democracy at all levels, and to the preservation and restoration of natural ecosystems in America and worldwide.

"We are specifically committed to the realization of new models for achieving local, national and global security that redirect the current wasteful and obscene levels of military spending toward the uncompromising and effective funding of: health and education programs; an end to discrimination; the provision of full and meaningful employment; and an end to poverty for all people."

Note the lack of arrogance.

[J.S.]

I agree that the word 'war' is the problem- war on terror is probably one of the worst phrases ever used- just step back a moment and contemplate it- semantics matter- I think struggle against or campaign against or fight against or something else needs to replace the term war, which does more to obfuscate reality than clarify it.

J.S.

[Darin London]

ARGH! This is the kind of thing that drives me crazy! The problem isnt the use of the word WAR, but that the NeoCons stole the Liberal language of Democracy Promotion, and fused it into a nationalist fear-based propaganda machine fueling blind support of their policies. They were successful precisely because most Americans have felt, since 9-11, that some element of people in the world are at WAR with us! What they do not really understand is that these elements are led by power hungry, non-ideological people willing to use the language of BOTH war and sacrifice (suicide bombing being the ultimate sacrifice) to consolidate their power over their people, and wage war against us with them. What we should be doing is reminding people of the essential fact that we are not the only ones who are affected by their actions, and that there is considerable leway to use truly Liberal policies, both diplomatic and military, in alliance with the other world powers, to effect a positive change in the lives of those most willing to sacrifice everything. If people can get a good job, and raise and feed their family, they will not blow themselves up on a bus. One underlying problem, I think, is that Republicans feel absolutely comfortable waging war without requiring any form of sacrifice from the current generation, while the Democrats avoid talking about war altogether, for fear that they would then be required to speak about the sacrifices that are absolutely required by a population in order to wage war. The centrists that determing elections can probably be convinced of the middle ground that we are at war, and it is going to take sacrifice from all elements of society in order to succeed against those aligned against us.

[Greg Sanders]

Darin London:
I personally am not saying we need to avoid talk of war at all. I'm saying that we should only talk of war when we consider military options to be on the table.

I think Mr. Hamid's use in that passage to be troubling because I don't think he considers tyranny, in and of itself, to be sufficient justification for war. Unless I seriously misunderstand his general positions, he's not advocating that we use military means to democratize, to pick an example he often discusses, Egypt.

So I think we should limit use of the word war to those cases where we think military means are appropriate. I fully support struggling against terrorism and tyranny, but I think military action should be reserved for more specific and higher thresholds.

[Darin London]

This prompted a Blog entry

http://dlondonx.blogspot.com/2006/11/war-is-not-answer.html

[Don Bacon]

Any constitution of military force, and certainly any decision to use military force, should be based on a threat assessment. The fact is that the United States is not currently threatened by any other country and the only reason that wars are ongoing is because we intitiated them under false pretenses They can no longer be sold to a gullible populace. In fact the people say "stop it."

Any true progressive, I believe, would agree that military force (war) is not a proper component of foreign policy, rather it represents a failure of foreign policy.

[Darin London]

Doesnt anyone else see how so many Americans would read the statement 'The United States is not currently threatened by any other country' to be misleading. No, there are not any sovereign nations who are threatening us. But there are groups who are aligned against us, and willing to use force against us, and they are supported by a collection of people and institutions within many countries, some of which, like Iran and Syria, are obviously not friendly to us, and others, like Saudi Arabia and Pakistan, seem to be on our side. To suggest that this amounts to a struggle, or a mere fight seems very wimpy to many Americans, rightly or wrongly.

[Andrew Yang]

Just an observation from someone who is neither liberal nor conservative (actually slightly liberal):

For me, the hallmark of the Neo-cons is not that they cast policy debates in moralistic terms, because Democrats do as well, but that they seem to care only for one aspect of morality - the moral outcome. In the name of democracy, freedom, "righteousness"... they are willing to ignore the ethnics of justifications and of methods. A just cause and just means are two of the most basic tenets of Just War Theory - yet the Bush administration has been short on both (no WMD found in Iraq, Abu Ghraib, Guantanamo... etc.) This is the scariest part for me - that the ruling elite of the most powerful country in the world is willing to impose their conception of morality at whatever cost and by whatever means.

What I'd like the Democrats and independents to stand up to say is: NO, we will not tolerate the use of war to promote democracy and human rights; and NO, we will not condone torture as a way to pursue national security. (Seriously, if democracy and human rights are supreme values, why not invade China - a regime that "quarantines" AIDS victims to let them die, and mass-persecute people for their religion? What the answer to this question should reveal is that even in moral debates there is always cost-benefit considerations)

[Don Bacon]

Darin,
You've been listening to too many George Bush speeches. Nobody (but you) believes the man any more.

I challenge you to come up with any reputable government document that asserts any threat against the U.S. calling for war. If you research Donald Rumsfeld's statements on the subject you will find no such threat assessment, in fact he consisitently says just what I said above. He also says that what is going on is an internal struggle within the Muslim faith.

Unfortunately the real wars we have started have created a new crop of terrorists. So it is the wars that created the terrorists and not the reverse. The CIA agrees.

The fact that there are terrorist groups in the world has been an ongoing phenomenon for years, and represents no significant statistical threat to the average world citizen, including Americans, and certainly doesn't call for any kind of war. The "war on terror" was just a neocon ploy to frighten the citizens, spend more money and suppress domestic freedom. Don't actually take it seriously. There is no basis for it except 9/11, and we won't go into that fiasco right now.

Iran and Syria are not friendly to us for very good reason--they have been designated as our enemies. Washington always needs enemies. Remember when Reagan said that Nicaragua was a threat to invade Texas? The axis of evil had a nice ring to it and so Syria and Iran have to play the part in the good guys vs. bad guys scenario. Don't you believe it for one minute, Darin.

[Don Bacon]

Darin,
General Pace, Cahairman of the JCS, on how to fight terrorism (Nov 10 interview):

General Pace likened the fight against terrorism to fighting crime. “Example: Here in Washington, D.C., there’s crime, but there’s a police force,” he said. “And the police force keeps the level of crime below the level at which the government can function. That’s really what winning in the war on terrorism is.”

[Darin London]

Ok, now we are getting somewhere. First of all, the reason I switched to voting for a Democrat Congressman in my area was precisely because I cant tolerate the fear rhetoric employed by the Republicans, and George Bush, as they were desperate to maintain control over the electorate at any cost, so we are in agreement. Try not to infer beliefs from people so fast just because they are expressing a common argument that many people who do believe the President believe in :)
I also agree that the 'War against Terrorism' should be considered as a Law Enforcement Matter, rather than a war. We really agree on most of these points. However, what I am trying to get at is that I hang out with so many people that really do believe that there is a force of people aligned against us, threatening to do harm to us. To them, we are at war. What I want to see is more intelligent discussion, such as what I read here, by the way, of the many, many ways that we have to address the problem. There is a dialogue that needs to happen which includes national sacrifice (e.g. a prudent, well designed tax policy that spreads the burden of dealing with the situation, etc.), and an appeal to the rich American Traditions that most Americans want to feel proud of, when they are not scared out of their wits. I have not seen enough of this from many Democratic candidates over the last year. I guess I am trying to say that the Democrats are currently making it too easy for the Republicans to caricature their positions as cynical political maneuvering to reallocate the Washington Money Machine to spend on their own vote guaranteeing programs (which the Republicans have shown themselves to be all too willing to do as well), rather than as serious leaders willing to lead us in making hard decisions which need to be made.

[Don Bacon]

Darin,
There is a force of people aligned--not aginst us, Americans--but against the US government and its destructive policies. I suggest that you try to make this point to your fellows. "They" don't hate us, they hate our arrogant "we can do whatever we want" government with its economic and military aggression. Unfortunately, that has been too much of the "American Tradition" that you speak of. Vietnam, Iraq, things like that. It's all for money.

One thing to look for now is for Bush to be forced to talk to Syria and Iran. I see in the headlines today that Bush has called for the "world isolation" of Iran. This is so stupid because Iran already has the support of much of the world including the Shanghai Conference (China, Russia, India) and the Non-aligned Nations (over 100 nations including many in Latin America and the Middle East). So it'll be "Bush's World" again--the UK, Poland, El Salvador and perhape Germany.

I'm afraid that you're not going to get far with National Sacrifice. Perhaps Commitment as in the PDA Vision above.

Come again.

[Darin London]

Yes, This is precisely my point. I experienced this directly when living in England, and visiting France, Germany, Spain, etc, and in Brazil this Summer. People really like Americans, but they hate our government, and I do tell this to people all the time. But, when the hatred of our Government results in the destruction of the World Trade Center, it gets a bit muddled for so many people. Countering this is so important, and language matters. Getting past the Republican Truthyness is hard, and I know that you guys are trying. Please keep it up :)

[fosamax]

what is celebrex product http://hydrocodonewith.blogbeam.com/ making hydrocodone

[zithromax]

paul colis cpa http://fioricetpillsa.spazioblog.it/ generic fioricet

[allegra]

drug information ultram http://www.rodiary.com/ultrideff/ getting used to ultram

[lamictal]

ranbaxy lorazepam http://whatislorazepam.infinitehosting.net/what_is_lorazepam.html ranbaxy lorazepam

[zetia]

hydrocodone search engines http://www.beepworld.it/members/synthroidandu/ liver disease and synthroid

[celebrex]

carisoprodol online buy soma http://mexcarisoprodol.spazioblog.it/ what carisoprodol is used for

[strattera]

prevacid cheap http://www.beepworld.it/members/norvasc5mg/ weight gain norvasc

[viagara]

Greetings http://viagara.xtw.pl - viagara - [URL=http://viagara.xtw.pl]viagara[/url] do it

[mazda]

Funny sites mazda bf erratic idle mazda b2200 pickup trucks sensors on a mazda millenia mazda protege performance turbo [URL=http://pebibas.info/108.html]mazda 323 distributor[/URL] [URL=http://pebibas.info/913.html]1996 mazda mx3 precidia gs[/URL] likes

[sport]

My mind is like a fog, not that it matters. I just don't have much to say these days. That's how it is. I haven't been up to anything recently.

company content Visit now!!

[trucks]

Hello boys and girls sapp brothers truck stop sysco trucking truck reflective chevron decals truck stop in kalispell montana [URL=http://zoomkas.info/454.html]car and truck repos[/URL] [URL=http://zoomkas.info/163.html]1979 datsun truck[/URL] last

[used cars]

Best information mouse trap racecar carbon arc lamphouse krause carrie nadia used car value [URL=http://zesedet.info/62.html]1994 lincon town car used[/URL] [URL=http://zesedet.info/459.html]carrol house furniture[/URL] good

[toyota]

Not much on my mind right now. Today was a complete loss. So it goes. I've just been sitting around waiting for something to happen. I've basically been doing nothing , but I guess it doesn't bother me.

oregon office Visit now!!

[blogs]

meu site... queria que avaliassem e dessem opinioes!

Keyword work website blogs money online will read it later.

[euroteensxxx]

My mind is like an empty room. Nothing seems worth thinking about. More or less not much noteworthy happening worth mentioning, but it's not important. I guess it doesn't bother me. I've just been letting everything wash over me lately.

[gay asian hunk]

Home schooling provides a better education, is worse for your child

[cock gay huge sex]

I can't be bothered with anything these days. I guess it doesn't bother me. What can I say?

[xxx gay fetish]

I can't be bothered with anything recently. I haven't been up to anything. I don't care. I haven't gotten much done lately. Not that it matters.