The Informationist

A Republican Notices Democratic Support for American Values

While visiting family in New Jersey yesterday, I ran across Cliff May‘s syndicated column in the Bergen Record. Among other things, Cliff points to an important new book, A Matter of Principle: Humanitarian Arguments for War in Iraq by Thomas Cushman.

For those who don’t know, Cliff is the founder and President of an important non-partisan organization, the Foundation for the Defense of Democracies. Though the foundation’s board includes prominent liberals like Donna Brazile, Chuck Schumer,Frank Lautenberg, and Elliot Engel, it has much less success getting the word of its important work out to those left of center than to those right of center.

I’ve heard Cliff speak several times, and broached the subject with him on several occasions. We agreed that the values he’s preaching are American values, not Republican or Democratic values. Nevertheless, and likely because of Cliff’s previous life as an RNC spokesman, I’ve long felt that he doesn’t couch his arguments in terms likely to appeal to Democrats. I’ve suggested that, when it comes to discussing America’s attitude towards terrorism from the 1970s through 9/10/01, there’s plenty of blame to share. Though credit for doing things right is harder to come by, it too knows no partisan boundary. My own suggestion was that, if he wanted to attract a truly bipartisan following, it might not hurt to describe Reagan’s numerous missteps (anyone hear a veiled apology for some of Reagan’s policies in Bush’s inaugural address?) and the various steps in the right direction that occurred during Clinton’s second term.

Yesterday’s article was a step in the right direction. But I called Cliff to share a deeper concern. We are caught in a real, global struggle here. To reiterate an opinion I’ve expressed elsewhere (on more than one occasion), I see little ideological difference between neocons in the Republican camp and liberal internationalists or Truman Democrats in the Democratic camp. Granted, these groups differ loudly on both the Bush Aministration’s strategic approach to the globalization of liberal democracy and on specific tactics. Above all, they differ on whether the Bush Administration is trustworthy and competent to enact the bold, noble agenda that the President’s words reflect. On basic ideology, however, they have a lot more in common with each other than either one does with Republican realists or Democratic pacifists. If we can’t develop a bipartisan consensus on the importance of globalizing fundamental liberal values, it’s unlikely to happen.

Unfortunately, I’m not convinced that many of the Republicans engaged in this struggle appreciate the need for bipartisan backing. When Karl Rove, in a perhaps all-too-typical expression of Republican triumphalism, denigrated “liberals” as seeking therapy for the barbarians of 9/11, where were the neocon voices decrying his obscene excesses? Perhaps it would be good for the Republican party if it could drive the Democrats into a knee-jerk, anti-war, anti-Western, neo-isolationist corner. Perhaps that would allow the Republicans to pick up the addition 2-3% of voters that they need to cement their majority. But it would be a disaster for the country and for the world. Global adoption of liberal democratic values cannot succeed without a strong, united America behind it. Even an America run by a single party capable of garnering 55% of the votes on a regular basis is too weak and too disunited to succeed.

In my opinion, the Bush Administration’s single greatest shortcoming has been its appalling opposition to national unity. As far as I can tell, Bush has reached across the aisle several times in principle, but never in practice. I cannot recall a single issue--either foreign or domestic--on which Bush has stood to tell the American public that he could have had all that he wanted with a slim majority, but that he compromised in order to secure a broad consensus. Would a good leader take such an approach all the time? Of course not. But a decent leader should take it some of the time. My reading of the Bush Administration--and even more so, of the Republican leaders in Congress--is that they take it none of the time.

I was thrilled to see Cliff reaching out--actively and in print--to remind readers that global liberal democracy is an American goal, not a partisan one. Perhaps this is where it starts: when former RNC spokesmen put country ahead of party.

Posted by Bruce Abramson from on 07/15 at 08:42 AM in American Government, Politics, and Domestic Policies, Foreign Affairs and the World beyond Our Borders