The Informationist

Consensus for Defeat

No, the heading has nothing to do with the Democratic victories in Congress. Anyone who has read any of my previous writings should know that I am a lifelong active Democrat whose disgust with the Party’s recent trends—primarily though not exclusively on foreign policy—has led me to a point at which I can no longer support it. At the same time though, I can’t recall ever having written anything very positive about the Republicans. I remain today what I have been for a bit more than a year-and-a-half: a politically aware, educated, INDEPENDENT voter, eying both parties warily, willing to hear which, if either, of these camps actually wants to win my vote. Some say that American voters threw the bastards out on Tuesday. I prefer to think that the American voter drove in for a long overdue rotation of its bastards.

So to the leaders (and activists) of both parties, I say once again: Convince me that your agenda will promote the liberal values of individual freedom, individual rights, and meaningful informed choice—not only in the U.S., but around the world, and you will earn my active, enthusiastic support. I will work for your candidates, donate money, and provide the services of my website—including this blog, with its more than zero readers—on your behalf. Until then, I’ll have to continue doing what I did on Tuesday—splitting my ballot with little particular care as to party affiliation.

So, two paragraphs in, having opened by explaining what I’m not discussing, my more than zero readers may be wondering what I am talking about. I can sum it up in two words: Robert Gates.

Yesterday morning, Donald Rumsfeld announced his resignation as Secretary of Defense. Now, it’s hard to see that as anything other than I good thing. I have been a constant and consistent critic of Rumsfeld—even back in 2003, when large parts of the nation regarded him as something of a matinee idol. I have long placed primary blame for our unwillingness to allocate the resources necessary to win in Iraq at Rumsfeld’s door. (That’s not to let Bush off the hook—after all, he doest make the call—but the question has to be which influential advisor is pushing for what). Rumsfeld, along with Cheney, are the archetypes of an old Republican bloc of “aggressive nationalists,” a group that (unlike the Democratic liberal internationalists or the Republican neoconservatives), have always viewed nation building as a waste of American time and money. Witness the results. Rumsfeld had been a horrible Defense Secretary. His policies have debilitated Iraq’s chances for recovery, endangered American troops, and emboldened anti-American movements around the globe. Largely under his advice, American forces have been soft when they should have been strong (e.g., Fallujah, Spring 2004), and insufficiently focused on the important task of institution building. Rumsfeld bears primary—though hardly sole—responsibility for ensuring that rather than accomplishing something positive in Iraq, we turned a 12-year failed policy of low-profile brutal occupation into a likely-to-fail higher-profile policy of incompetent policing. Good riddance. The country will be much better off with Rumsfeld gone from this critical position.

Regrettably, and astoundingly to some, Gates represents a significant step in the wrong direction. He is a return to the disastrous Republican Realism that characterized the Papa Bush administration (not to mention the Eisenhower and Nixon administrations). His appointment, coupled with the recent revival of that great architect of disaster James Baker, suggests that the presidency of George W. Bush will end where it began—elevating the worst “realist” instincts of the Republican Party above the long-term interests of America, freedom, and global development.

Over the past five years, I have written repeatedly that the best—in fact, the only truly exemplary—aspect of this Presidency has been its rhetorical support for freedom and human dignity worldwide. I have been critical of most of its policies, in particular its refusal to allocate the resources necessary to do important things right. But I have been steadfast in my admiration for its rhetoric. On numerous occasions, I have told numerous people: “I’m a huge fan of the ‘Bush Doctrine.’ Someday, I hope to live in a country that adopts it as its foreign policy.” I have often expressed a concern that Bush’s incompetent and half-assed attempts to implement this doctrine were giving it a bad name. But when push comes to shove, I believed it before the President articulated it, and recent events suggest that I will continue to believe it now that he has abandoned it.

The wing of contemporary foreign policy analysis mislabeled “realism,” had long been strongest in the Republican Party, though it maintains advocates on both sides of the aisle (see Brzezinski). It is rhetorically distinct, but operationally indistinguishable, from its Democratic counterpart of utopianism. Here’s the shorthand: Republican realists believe that the world and its players are who they are, and cannot and will not change. Crises are to be managed—typically by handing the most radical elements what they need in order to “play along.” The goal is always to restore the situation ex ante, though likely with the radicals sufficiently placated to defer the next crisis (hopefully until someone else assumed power in the U.S.). Democratic utopians believe that the world and all of its players are basically decent, reasonable, misunderstood people who share American values but remain frustrated by the “international community’s” unwillingness to address their grievances. The policy prescription is invariably to appease radicals, hoping to buy a bit of time for diplomacy to prevail (which, of course, it always must, as all people are basically reasonable).

The only real difference between the Jimmy Carter and the BushBaker approaches to foreign policy is rhetoric. Both draw upon a deep strand of neo-racism that divides the world into civilized folk (mostly white, some Asian, with Westerners of Color slowly coming aboard), and barbaric savages (some Asians, all Africans, all Arabs). From civilized folk, we demand civilized behavior, and hold them responsible for their actions. From barbaric savages, we expect little and demand less. These neo-racists can rarely tell you whether or not something is an “atrocity” or a “crisis” worthy of our attention until they identify the perpetrator. Discrimination against a black African population is a cause celebre, worthy of orchestrated international action, if the discrimination in question is a legal system put in place by civilized South Africans of European descent. If, on the other hand, it’s wholesale slaughter committed by African Arabs (see Sudan) or African Blacks (see Rwanda), it is merely a regrettable incidence that we should advise against. Should these little savages behave in ways that we might deem unacceptable, we must recognize that they are nothing but savages. Under Carterism, they’ve already been punished enough; under BushBakerism, they lack the ability to learn and to change. Under either theory, we end up placating them.

The best thing that George W. Bush has done with his time in office is that he has started a long move away from this sort of neo-racism. He has, at the very least, announced an end to this sort of official U.S. neo-racism. He has announced that we will hold Iraqis, Palestinians, Afghans, and maybe even Sudanese, to the same levels of civilized behavior that we hold ourselves. (Implementation, again, is another matter). His recent revival of Baker and his current turn towards Gates suggest a major, major defeat. Everything in Gates’s long career suggests that this choice is an intentional turn back towards the neo-racist, anti-liberal, self-defeating policies of Republican realism. It is a disaster for America and for the world.

To tie my opening and closing thoughts together, the key question that I will be asking over the next few years is: Who will lead international liberalism into the future? Both parties can point with pride to great historical leaders and voices: Harry Truman, Arthur Vandenberg, JFK, Scoop Jackson, Daniel Moynihan, Ronald Reagan, and George Schultz spring immediately to mind. Both parties can also point with shame to strings of neo-racist defeatists: Herbert Hoover, Charles Lindbergh, John Foster Dulles, George McGovern, Jimmy Carter, Henry Kissinger, Zbigniew Brzezinski, James Baker, Caspar Weinberger, and George H.W. Bush lead the pack. Which way will the parties turn? Over the past five years, virtually every step that I’ve seen the Democrats take has been in the wrong direction. The Republicans have been more of a mixed bag. With the Gates nomination, George W. Bush is swinging his administration back towards the disastrous policies of his father.

Over the past few days, the U.S. has seen a remarkable consensus for defeat emerge. Not defeat in Iraq, but defeat overall. We are laying the groundwork for the end of the era of global liberal ascendance. Who will assume the mantle of leadership? Who will stand for those of us who prefer to win? That, in my mind, is the greatest open question facing the country today.

Posted by Bruce Abramson from on 11/09 at 04:11 PM in American Government, Politics, and Domestic Policies, Foreign Affairs and the World beyond Our Borders