The Informationist

Ideology or Partisanship?

It seems that there are many Democrats out there intent upon defining a ”Democratic World View.” These folks insist that there are significant doctrinal differences between Democrats and Republicans. Some were even flummoxed that Chuck Hagel, the grand Republican Realist from Nebraska, has taken the lead of “what should be” the Democratic position. They’re all wrong. Doctrinal differences within the U.S. do not split along party lines. And so, somewhat exasperated, I entered the fray once again:

I often feel like a lone voice in the wilderness when I ask this question, but why is everyone so deadset on insisting that there must be doctrinal differences between Republicans and Democrats? Why must “worldview” break down along party lines?

There is little doubt that Democrats and Republicans place differing amounts of trust in different leaders. By and large, Democrats were willing to give Bill Clinton, and not George W. Bush, the benefit of the doubt on policies that entailed significant risks. Most Republicans tilt in the opposite direction. Fine. So to many Democrats, wading into the Balkan conflict behind trusted leaders appeared to be a risk worth taking; wading into Iraq behind an untrusted bunch was not. Republicans taking the opposite view clearly disagree--but not on matters of doctrine.

How about the role of the UN? No one seriously believes that the UN, as currently configured, provides a workable framework for establishing international law or maintaining collective security. I mean really, are Democrats more or less willing than Republicans to accept Libya’s determination of human rights violations? No serious American thinker can possibly believe that the inputs of weak dictatorships warrant the same consideration as those of strong liberal democracies--as the UN’s very structure mandates. How do we get from our current impotent international system into a workable one--and what would such a system look like? Democrats and Republicans agree that to be viable, an “international order” must protect basic human rights, promote the rule of law, and generally foster liberal values and democratic participation. They disagree about precisely how much of the current system is salvageable in getting from where we are to where we need/want to be--and about how to effect this transition. Again, I see no grand doctrinal split.

The big rift lies within each party. The Republican umbrella covers isolationists, protectionists, realists, neoconservatives, and aggressive nationalists (i.e., those who would exert maximum U.S. force on a small number of critical issues). The Democratic umbrella covers pacifists, protectionists, realists, muscular liberals, and aggressive internationalists (i.e., those who would pursue only those agendas that are matters of international consensus as demonstrated by the UN or other organizations). Parallels among the first three groups are obvious, and cut across party lines in predictable ways that almost always seem “surprising.” Neocons and muscular liberals share a desire to see an emerging international order predicated on liberal ideals. They (we) agree with each other on more doctrine than either one shares with isolationists, protectionists, or realists. The only real doctrinal difference lies between the aggressive nationalists (e.g., Rumsfeld, Cheney) and the aggressive internationalists (e.g., Carter). Both groups believe that existing institutions will guarantee global security--but differ markedly as to which institutions they trust.

These spectra are hardly surprising; most people base their party affiliation on the domestic issues of economics and culture, and then try to influence others with “shared values” to agree with them on foreign policy matters. Sometimes they succeed, sometimes not.

Attempts to define a distinct “Democratic World View” are doomed to failure. They smell more of an attempt to prove that Democrats and Republicans really live on two distinct planets than of serious analysis. Worse than that, they are bad for America and detrimental to our role in the world. A Republican president in the 1990s might have moved into the Balkans; a Democrat other than Bill Clinton might have refused to do so. A Democrat in office post-9/11 might have moved into Iraq; a Republican other than Bush might not have. And it’s a safe bet that the specific approaches these initiatives would have differed based upon the personality of the President--to at least as great a degree as party affiliation.

So let’s just face it. We’ve got an American debate about the sort of world we want to live in and the things that we can do to maximize our prospects for getting there. Stop trying to inject partisanship into it!

Posted by Bruce Abramson from on 08/22 at 05:25 AM in American Government, Politics, and Domestic Policies, Foreign Affairs and the World beyond Our Borders