The Goldberg Variations

To echo my man Spencer, someone should let Jeffrey Goldberg know that whatever you want to call the fact that the Democratic base thinks fighting AIDS should be a top foreign policy priority means, it can't mean that Democrats are retreating from internationalism. We're looking at an intense concern for the well-being of foreigners who live in states too poor or too chaotic to take care of them properly and, perhaps, concern about the second-order consequences of indifference to their fate. As Henley likes to say here, the specter of "isolationism" in this context is merely "a reluctance to travel a long distance to kill foreigners at great expense."

Meanwhile, why would you be listening to Evan Bayh to put your finger on the pulse of things?

Bayh says it "would be tragic" if Iraq makes people too hesitant to launch a war against Iran "because Iran is a grave threat. They’re everything we thought Iraq was but wasn’t. They are seeking nuclear weapons, they do support terrorists, they have threatened to destroy Israel, and they’ve threatened us, too." While Bayh's analysis of this would obviously be more credible if he hadn't been wrong about Iraq, his analysis is also simply wrong. What "we thought Iraq was" was a country likely to acquire a nuclear weapon that it was likely to deploy in an unprovoked first strike against the United States (possibly delivered via al-Qaeda) as well as a promising venue for an experiment in democratization-by-occupation. Not only was Iraq none of those things, but Iran is none of those things easier.

And so it goes for Goldberg. His basic view seems to be that if you're an "internationalist" you must agree with him that the war in Iraq should be continued indefinitely, perhaps escalated à la Bush/McCain, and then expanded to Iran. But if this is internationalism -- if it means committing an endless series of military blunders -- then who needs it? These policy prescriptions need to be defended on the merits, but their exponents don't quite seem to be able to muster that.

Comments

"While Bayh's analysis of this would obviously be more credible if he hadn't been wrong about Iraq..."

While Matthew's and Spencer's analysis of Bayh's analysis would obvious be more credible if they hadn't been wrong about Iraq...

----------

"And so it goes for Goldberg. His basic view seems to be that if you're an "internationalist" you must agree with him that the war in Iraq should be continued indefinitely, perhaps escalated à la Bush/McCain, and then expanded to Iran."

I don't know Goldberg's entire body of work, but based solely on this particular piece, your reading of Goldberg's 'basic view' seems more than slightly delusional.

Seriously, is there some history to this other than the piece you linked to? Because if not, you need another cup of coffee, or better reading glasses, or something...

Posted by Petey | January 9, 2007 8:08 AM

Commeter #2 "Petey". When the first thing out of your outh (read "pen") is ad hominem - then you have shown your stripes as another mindless Rethug.

Posted by Peter Waksman | January 9, 2007 8:34 AM

"Internationalism" = Killing brown people because they're standing in the way of some rich guys' getting richer.

Posted by Phoenix Woman | January 9, 2007 8:34 AM

oops I meant "mouth"

Posted by Peter Waksman | January 9, 2007 8:35 AM

These policy prescriptions need to be defended on the merits, but their exponents don't quite seem to be able to muster that.

Well, in fairness, it is pretty tricky to defend on the merits policies that possess no mrit, innit?

Posted by konopelli | January 9, 2007 8:36 AM

While Waksman appears unaware that Petey is a liberal activist, I nonetheless want to ask Petey whether he read the article.

That Bayh argument in favor of war with Iran is never rebutted. Bayh is clearly held up as the paragon of the "internationalist" left, even though he supports a tremendously stupid neoconservative dream. (You're deeply opposed to war with Iran, right? So deeply opposed that you've mocked MY for suggesting it was even a possibility?)

Some more quotes:

When I asked Edwards last week for a concise description of his Iraq position, he said, “Let’s start leaving.” Hillary Clinton, who has not announced her candidacy but is said to be close to doing so, is a connoisseur of statecraft, the candidate of the Democratic foreign-policy élite. She brings the most experience in foreign policy to the race—much of it gained vicariously, in her husband’s White House. Unlike Edwards, she sees the loss of Iraq as potentially catastrophic for American national-security interests.

This is a profound misreading of Edwards' position. He sees that the loss of Iraq has already been catastrophic for American national-security interests. No one thinks the loss of Iraq isn't catastrophic.

Goldberg here quite clearly is attempting to make supporters of withdrawal appear unserious and unconcerned about hard power politics or human suffering. The upshot of his argument is that only those who support escalation, stay-the-course, or non-commital Hillaryisms recognize that Iraq is / would be a catastrophe.

Really, it's a high-minded hit piece against Edwards. I would think that might get you up in arms, just a bit...

Posted by DivGuy | January 9, 2007 9:03 AM

How touching that the Democratic base feels an "an intense concern for the well-being of foreigners who live in states too poor or too chaotic to take care of them properly."

By that logic, Angelina Jolie would be their best candidate for 2008.

I would be curious to hear how such an admirable sympathy for the poor and downtrodden translates into a foreign policy position---i.e., a program for addressing American interests abroad.

Posted by hepzeeba | January 9, 2007 9:12 AM

"I don't know Goldberg's entire body of work, but based solely on this particular piece, your reading of Goldberg's 'basic view' seems more than slightly delusional."

Oh, come on, Petey. Goldberg's piece is obviously an an attack on Edwards and his position on Iraq: for immediate withdrawal. And if Goldberg thinks withdrawal is a bad idea, then guess what? He wants the war to continue. Goldberg equates a desire for withdrawal with a lack of concern about Iraqis, because we all known that nothing says love like occupation.
And he laments the isolationism supposedly rampant in the Democratic ranks, to which Edwards is allegedly playing. Why is Edwards an isolationist? Because he wants to end the war in Iraq. The piece also criticizes Obama for waffling on Iraq and reserves its praise for Clinton, who speaks with confidence, as opposed to Edwards, who, according to Goldberg, doesn't speak intelligently about foreign affairs and even tries to mask his lack of intelligence with "overenthusiasm." The bastard.

It's weird that you would defend an attack on the candidate you supposedly support, unless you're a different Petey. Or unless you're having a stupid day.

Posted by david mizner | January 9, 2007 9:16 AM

I would be curious to hear how such an admirable sympathy for the poor and downtrodden translates into a foreign policy position---i.e., a program for addressing American interests abroad.

Yeah, the people who need to answer this question, and fast, are the people who opposed the catastrophic failure in Iraq, who opposed Bush's disastrous handling of Iran and North Korea, who opposed his useless unilateralism in breaking the NPT, who were fucking right about most everything that's gone on in the last six years. It's they who need to translate their beliefs into a coherent policy, it's not the people who have supported and still support this failed president's failed and disastrous policies, who support the mass human suffering he has brought about, and who support the diminution of American power which he has brought about. They have nothing to answer for.

If you are too damn lazy to read the extensive liberal debates on foreign policy over the last several years, I'm not going to summarize them for you in one blog comment.

Posted by DivGuy | January 9, 2007 9:19 AM

"You're deeply opposed to war with Iran, right? So deeply opposed that you've mocked MY for suggesting it was even a possibility?"

I think a US bombing strike on Iran between now and Jan '09 is definitely less likely than 50/50. I think it's unlikely, but I don't think it's impossible.

Cheney basically seems a devotee of Nixon's madman strategy, so it's difficult to perfectly read him. But I'd feel comfortable betting money against them actually going for the air strike.

Personally, I certainly don't think that bombing Iran would be in the national interest.

Posted by Petey | January 9, 2007 9:20 AM

Personally, I certainly don't think that bombing Iran would be in the national interest.

Given that belief, which I share, why do you defend Goldberg, who holds up Evan Bayh's clear support of war with Iran as the supposed paragon of liberal internationalism?

Insofar as people want to defend "internationalism", Goldberg is dragging its good name through the mud, making it essentially indistinguishable from neoconservativism. If Fred Kagan is a mainstream internationalist, then internationalism can catch gonorrhea and rot in hell.

Posted by DivGuy | January 9, 2007 9:25 AM

I would be curious to hear how such an admirable sympathy for the poor and downtrodden translates into a foreign policy position---i.e., a program for addressing American interests abroad.

position point #1: don't invade countries for reasons based on baseless "1%" speculation; because, when you invade countries for any reason, you're bound to cause massive humanitarian problems (ex. the 3,700,000 people that have been displaced in Iraq, and the hundreds of thousands of dead Iraqis - people who, you'll recall, hadn't done a fucking thing to the US). Not killing innocent people = admirable.

should i go on?

Posted by cleek | January 9, 2007 9:27 AM

"Really, it's a high-minded hit piece against Edwards."

To some degree, sure.

Posted by Petey | January 9, 2007 9:30 AM

The capacity to instill fear in the hawkish smart-set is a prerequisite for traction in the Democratic Primary. By attacking the man he (correctly) calls the "candidate of troop withdrawal," Goldberg has essentially written a press release for his campaign.

I'm feeling pretty good about Edwards' chances this morning.

Posted by david mizner | January 9, 2007 9:32 AM

"Given that belief, which I share, why do you defend Goldberg"

I'm defending Goldberg because Matthew said that Goldberg believes "the war in Iraq should be continued indefinitely, perhaps escalated à la Bush/McCain, and then expanded to Iran," and I'm having serious difficulty finding that section in the text.

Posted by Petey | January 9, 2007 9:35 AM

I'm feeling pretty good about Edwards' chances this morning.

I agree. Petey, aren't you supposed to be in the tank for John Edwards? Why stick up for Goldberg's silly attacks on his foreign policy.

Posted by Matthew Yglesias | January 9, 2007 9:37 AM

"Petey, aren't you supposed to be in the tank for John Edwards?"

Damn fucking straight.

"Why stick up for Goldberg's silly attacks on his foreign policy."

See my 9:35 AM comment.

Posted by Petey | January 9, 2007 9:43 AM

Iran is [...] everything we thought Iraq was but wasn’t.

Let me correct that sentence so that it gives a more accurate account of its author's credibility:

I think Iran is [...] everything I thought Iraq was but wasn’t.

There. Now it lets you decide whether to take him any nore seriously than he should have been taken last time.

Posted by derek | January 9, 2007 9:44 AM

And FWIW, I had the same basic reaction to Goldberg's piece that I normally have to the average Matt Bai piece: it's half brilliant and half idiotic.

I think Goldberg's underlying point that the Iraqi Misadventure has created strains in the Democratic coalition's acceptance of military interventionism is spot on, and not unimportant.

Posted by Petey | January 9, 2007 9:51 AM

Goldberg believes "the war in Iraq should be continued indefinitely, perhaps escalated à la Bush/McCain, and then expanded to Iran," and I'm having serious difficulty finding that section in the text.

Seriously? You don't see this? I think you may need reading comprehension classes. The article is framed around Evan Bayh's views in a way that's nonsensical unless we're supposed to understand the author as endorsing them. What's more, Bayh aside the "question" of the article is whether or not "internationalism" can survive in the Democratic Party and this question is probed by inquiring into each candidate's taste for continuing the war in Iraq and for launching a war against Iran.

Posted by Matthew Yglesias | January 9, 2007 9:52 AM

I think Goldberg's underlying point that the Iraqi Misadventure has created strains in the Democratic coalition's acceptance of military interventionism is spot on, and not unimportant.

This is a mighty low bar, eh? I'd say it's true, important, and utterly obvious then fused with a bunch of false and pernicious stuff.

Posted by Matthew Yglesias | January 9, 2007 9:53 AM

Perhaps the problem is that we don't understand what model of "internationalism" Jonah is drawing on. From my reading of history I suspect it is the "proletarian internationalism" of the old Brezhnev doctrine. That was the ideological fig leaf that justified Soviet military intervention in any country that threatened to escape the Soviet orbit. Sound familiar?

Posted by W.B. Reeves | January 9, 2007 10:25 AM

"Seriously? You don't see this? I think you may need reading comprehension classes. The article is framed around Evan Bayh's views in a way that's nonsensical unless we're supposed to understand the author as endorsing them"

I can certainly understand a reading where Goldberg is a Bayh-ian. But I think it's a pretty fundamental misunderstanding to see Bayh (or HRC for that matter) as thinking the Iraq war should be escalated, continually indefinitely, and expanded to Iran.

Bayh ≠ Cheney.

Posted by Petey | January 9, 2007 10:28 AM

Created strains, Petey? Created strains?

That's not his "underlying point." His underlying point is that dangerous dovishness and isolationism, as supposedly evidenced by the opposition to the war in Iraq, are on the rise among the Democratic base, and that this is a bad thing for the party and the country.

Cut your losses, Petey. Pull out of the argument. Immediate withdrawal, please.

Posted by david mizner | January 9, 2007 10:31 AM

"Cut your losses, Petey. Pull out of the argument. Immediate withdrawal, please."

I'm only willing to support a partial withdrawal from the argument to begin with.

We can't have a failed argument that would be a breeding ground for terrorist underlying points.

Posted by Petey | January 9, 2007 10:41 AM

If a candidate's spouse counts, put me in the tank for John Edwards, too. His wife seems to be the most interesting, genuinuely-human political spouse ever.

Posted by Jeffrey Davis | January 9, 2007 10:56 AM

Cut your losses, Petey. Pull out of the argument.

Either that, or get a job at Slate. Just forward this phrase to them:

it's half brilliant and half idiotic

and you're hired. Just think: lunch with Mickey Kaus! Who could ask for anything more?

Posted by Uncle Kvetch | January 9, 2007 12:06 PM

Really, it's a high-minded hit piece against Edwards.

Low-minded, actually. You don't write articles like this merely to analyze the position of the candidate and find it wanting; you do so to further the meme that confuses "internationalism" with "war-mongering".

You have to be pretty low-minded to think of pre-emptive war as anything but loathsome, and pretty stupid to think that the best way to spread democracy (or freedom, or liberty, or whatever) is to kill the people you are attempting to "enlighten".

For that matter, you have to be a nitwit not to have noticed that, as DivGuy points out above, the war was always going to be a catastrophe and certainly has become one. Yes, we have lost Iraq; we did so the minute we invaded it.

Now, here's our real problem: Condi Rice's little "mushroom cloud" speech raised the bar for recognizing this failure so high that there will have to be a mushroom cloud over Washington before these people finally start to realize that their program of appeasing the Republicans was always a shit-stupid idea.

Posted by Avedon | January 9, 2007 1:45 PM

It is good to kick Jeffrey Goldberg for his many errors and Ken Silverstein did a decent job of it about six months ago for those of you who need a refresher on Goldberg's limp oeuvre:
http://www.harpers.org/sb-goldbergs-war-1151687978.html

Posted by Akynikos | January 9, 2007 2:47 PM

"You're deeply opposed to war with Iran, right? So deeply opposed that you've mocked MY for suggesting it was even a possibility?"

I think I finally figured out what you're referring to.

This past summer, I thought the chances of the WH bombing Iran prior to the '06 elections were approaching zero.

Posted by Petey | January 9, 2007 9:57 PM