Notebook

---

September 20, 2002

Where are the liberal alternatives?

Where are the liberal alternatives to President Bush's foreign policy?

It strikes me that folks on the left have no hope of achieving much political success if they don't start figuring out why other people don't see what they see. We can't just wish that things were otherwise. As far as I'm concerned, only part of the answer can be attributed to the willful ignorance of the population, the brazen machinations of the administration, the spinelessness of the press, etc. There's something more going on here.

Part of the problem is that the left, including the Democratic Party, isn't proposing alternatives that strike at the heart of the matter. (Or, at least in the short term, the left hasn't found anything like an effective way of helping us see their alternatives.) It does seem clear that Bush has taken advantage of a situation to force the U.N. to confront an ongoing problem that it chose not to address, and while I'm amazed at how excessively broad (or unfocused) some of the administration's goals seem to be, I can't fault them for boldness.

Recently, I've seen several attempts at presenting a progressive or liberal alternative. Here are three:

• Tom Hayden's Alternet proposal — let's call it a suggested Green Party platform.

• Todd Gitlin's New York Times op-ed, which condemns the "blame America first" left and tries to outline some liberal goals.

• The New Republic's castigation of the Democrats, which outlines some internationalist principles for liberals

Here's the condensed versions:

Hayden declares the Democratic Party incapable of proposing alternatives:

The Democratic Party, whatever doubts it may harbor, will remain devoted to the war on terrorism, including spending for a new generation of weapons and reinvigorated intelligence programs, as long as it is popular. The framework of the war on terrorism will be accepted as the litmus test of political legitimacy, and partisan differences will be limited to social security, unemployment benefits, Enron-inspired regulatory reform, and the like. Those differences are not unimportant, but the truth is that spending alone on the war on terrorism will cause permanent underfunding of important social programs for many years to come. For the Democrats to offer themselves as simply a liberal version of the war on terrorism will not address the root causes nor protect programs for which earlier generations of liberals, unionists, and Democrats have struggled.

So Hayden dreams instead of the Sixties: "A combination of military quagmire abroad and neglect of priorities at home will sooner or later shape an opposition." Well now, there's hoping. What's missing here — and what accounts for my own dim view of the left — is the absence of a meaningful idea of American leadership in the world. Maybe we don't deserve such a role, from the "blame America first" perspective, but we have it. My question is, what do liberals think we should do with it?

Hayden advises the activist contingent to plan for the long haul, and suggests organizing protests that call "for a process of greater oversight, greater attention to priorities, and greater tolerance of dissent, instead of, for example, calls for military withdrawal from Afghanistan," which he concedes the left is divided on. That way, the left can build a bit of momentum before the body-bags give them the street protests they're waiting for.

Concretely, he proposes: "First, progressives and Democrats should take the position that those in power have failed over the years to make America safer from terrorist attack." Amen. He says this will mean limiting intelligence agencies at home and abroad. Progressives, he says, should also oppose the oil industry, making fuel efficiency and renewable energy priorities. He also stresses the need for a resolution of the Palestinian-Israeli conflict. Finally, he proposes rapid increases in foreign aid from the G-7 to help offset consequences of economic globalization. I'll sign on to these, although clearly the intelligence agencies need reform, and the CIA may need to put a bit more effort into spying, which isn't always a pretty business.

Gitlin, a progressive who has condemned the Chomskyite crowd, proposes that liberals make rebuilding Afghanistan their priority. Making Afghanistan and other faltering states secure is a great way to stifle terrorism. Liberals ought to rally around this in a big way.

Gitlin adds that "liberals should affirm that American power, working within coalitions, can advance democratic values, as in Bosnia and Kosovo — but they should oppose this administration's push toward war in Iraq, which is unlikely to work out that way." Notice that he differs from Hayden and many on the left who automatically resist the exertion of U.S. power in foreign affairs, but reasserts the need for international coalitions and opposes the unilateralist push toward war in Iraq.

Crucially, though, Gitlin says it's time for liberals to rejoin the American mainstream. "Post-Vietnam liberals have an opening now, freed of our 60's flag anxiety and our reflexive negativity, to embrace a liberal patriotism that is unapologetic and uncowed." It seems to me that any form of progressive thinking that hopes to make an impression in the forseeable future needs to do just this.

The New Republic, which has been hawkish toward Iraq, blasts the Democrats for asking for a debate that they haven't bothered to enter. "They keep insisting that the Bush administration has not adequately begun the debate over war. But the debate will begin the moment those who disagree with Bush begin it. The obstacle to democratic deliberation is not just the secrecy of the administration but also the silence of the opposition."

So they offer a starting point for a Democratic foreign policy: the 2000 Democratic Party Platform. The Party in 2000 embraced "forward engagement," which "means addressing problems early in their development before they become crises, addressing them as close to the source of the problem as possible, and having the forces and the resources to deal with these threats as soon after their emergence as possible."

The New Republic argues that "'forward engagement' (a version of the old strategic concept of 'forward defense') is itself a recognition that containment is no longer enough, that the prerogatives of sovereignty can no longer give countries the right to hatch plans that will eventually spread mass destruction beyond their borders." The editors acknowledge that military force is only occasionally the best form of forward engagement, but they argue that sanctions and containment haven't worked in Iraq. They also condemn Bush's failure to confront insecure nuclear facilities throughout the former Soviet Union, his lack of interest in Afghan peacekeeping, and Republican resistance to international agreements that involve "minor infringements" on U.S. sovereignty.

Until the Democrats identify liberal principles that can effectively address real problems in the larger world, no amount of talk about root causes will generate enough public support to deter Bush from some of the zanier parts of his agenda. Hayden's "progressive" alternative strikes me as inadequate. Gitlin and the editors of The New Republic have some ingredients that I think might help. What do others think?

UUS-L 9.20.02