Avoiding the Issue

Writing about Democrats' tendency to want to shoehorn energy policy issues into discussion of national security, Ezra says he "can't quite decide if the subject is acting in a complementary way to a straight national security policy, or serving as a substitute for an issue Democrats are still uncomfortable talking about."

The correct answer is that it's serving as a substitute for an issue Democrats are still uncomfortable talking about. Global warming is an extremely important issue for the country. It's potentially a favorable issue for the Democratic Party. But when people say they want to hear from Democrats about foreign policy, they're saying they want to hear a message about war and peace. The trouble is that you can't articulate a clear theory about war and peace that doesn't provide a clear conclusion about Iraq. And reaching a clear conclusion about Iraq would involve confronting the large number of Democratic elites who backed the war.

People on both sides of that divide, however, have been very interested in sort of covering up the breach and having everyone play together nicely. And party unity is a good thing. But you're never going to have a clear, forceful message on the core foreign policy issues unless you're willing to take a stand on preventive war, on democratization by invasion, etc.

Photo by Flickr user Exquisitely Bored in Nagodoches used under a Creative Commons license

Comments

> But you're never going to have a clear,
> forceful message on the core foreign policy
> issues unless you're willing to take a stand on
> preventive war, on democratization by invasion,
> etc.

I don't disagree with anything you say, but at the same time there is also something missing from your formulation: oil. A very large part of British and US military policy and interventionist foreign policy since 1920 has been centered on ensuring a free flow of reasonably low-cost oil into the home country. I believe this was discussed openly in England at the time (at least during the debate over whether the dreadnoughts should be coal- or oil-powered), but the United States just can't seem to bring itself to face this uncomfortable fact.

There really isn't any reason for the US to be intervening in the Middle East except oil. In fact I propose that oil or no we just walk away and let the region sort itself out - if they sell us oil, OK, if not, we will survive (and in the end be better off). But again we can't do this, and oil is never mentioned as a driving reason why; always something high-minded such as 'democracy promotion'.

Cranky

Posted by Cranky Observer | June 12, 2007 11:31 AM

The first Democrat to talk this way was Wes Clark, who obviously had no problem discussing "real" foreign policy.

While I agree that there are some that use this other stuff to avoid discussing war and peace, real foreign policy (as opposed to "real" foreign policy) includes all of this.

Posted by Mark | June 12, 2007 11:36 AM

What's missing is probably more style than substance. What Atrios called "posing".

Democrats need to portray themselves as being tough, as going on the offensive, taking the war to the terrorists, yadda yadda. This kind of language needs to be joined to realistic policies, which I won't rehash here.

At the same time, they need to portray the Republicans and their policies as "hysterical", "harebrained", "crazy neocon schemes", etc.

In addition, I think the time is right for tilting a little bit in the populist, "isolationist" direction. Asking questions like: why should we be doing x,y, and z for those people? This is a good way to avoid foreign entanglements while sounding tough at the same time. There is plenty of opportunity to criticise Bush and his policies by emphasizing that we want to put Americans first.

Posted by Jim W | June 12, 2007 11:40 AM

You're really pounding away at poor Ezra lately.

Keep it up. Arguing with smart people based on shared premises is a better use of your time than arguing with mendacious idiots.

(And Ezra is so wrong so often...)

Posted by lemuel pitkin | June 12, 2007 11:44 AM

...you're never going to have a clear, forceful message on the core foreign policy issues unless you're willing to take a stand on preventive war, on democratization by invasion, etc....

It's called doing what you think is right and letting the chips fall where they may instead of always wringing your hands, putting a wet finger in the air and allowing the compulsion to game the system to determine what your positions are.

Posted by Fred Jones | June 12, 2007 12:16 PM

Isn't that exactly what many progressives think the Democrats have done in regard to the war? They've been in there 6 months - and what have they accomplished other than pass a few popular bills?

Posted by Fred Jones | June 12, 2007 12:18 PM

When's your book coming out?

Posted by Korha | June 12, 2007 12:30 PM

When's your book coming out?

April, I think.

Posted by Matthew Yglesias | June 12, 2007 12:36 PM

And party unity is a good thing.

Could you elaborate? Good for whom and to what end?

Posted by Ultima Ratio | June 12, 2007 1:59 PM

The Democrats are not alone in equating energy policy with national security. They are joined by a platoon of neo-liberal hawks like James Woolsey and conservatives like Frank Gaffney who are pushing plugin hybrid technology as a partial answer to dependence on Middle East Oil. Woolsey and Gaffney are selling this technology as a national security issue.

Posted by SLC | June 12, 2007 3:57 PM