Winning on Security

Brian Katulis writes on a subject near to my heart: how progressives can win on national security. His thought, meanwhile, largely mirrors my own. It's important to make a broad-based, principles-driven argument that the failures of the Bush years represent an ideological failure that discredits not specific people but their ideas.

I do, however, have one point of disagreement related to Katulis' disparagement of calls for bipartisanship. I think one has to be careful here. The party coalitions are arranged primarily around issues of domestic policy and identity, so there often isn't especially sharp partisan differentiation on these subjects. Most elected officials just don't care at all about the substance of foreign policy issues. Meanwhile, many moderate Republican politicians have really been no worse than your "liberal hawk" types. I'm not one to go over-the-top in valorizing Chuck Hagel et. al., but he's been at least as good as, say, Ben Nelson on a number of key issues.

This goes two way. On the one hand, Dick Lugar really is someone it should be possible for a new administration to work with on a number of topics. Conversely, there are plenty of Democrats who are sort of no good. So bipartisanship can work out well or it can work out poorly. I think, for example, that this "bipartisan agenda" statement from the Stanley Foundation on "revitalizing international cooperation" is pretty good. Their book of "bipartisan" essays, on the other hand, is a very mixed bag. The "bipartisan center" composed of Michael O'Hanlon and Frederick Kagan is one we could do without. But Francis Fukuyama is the author of an important critique of neoconservative foreign policy and when he teams up with Michael McFaul the results are good.

Basically, during 2002-2003 we saw pernicious factions take control of both political parties. But other factions exist inside both parties. Building alliances with the more sensible moderate Republicans, paleocons, libertarians, etc. is, I think, essential to beating back the tide of horrors.

Comments

What's the name of your book gonna be again?

Posted by Freddie | January 8, 2008 4:07 PM

Basically, during 2002-2003 we saw pernicious factions take control of both political parties. But other factions exist inside both parties.

I think that basically sums up what Bloomberg was reacting to in all his mysterious machinations. But he purposely avoided criticizing Obama because he's suspecting Obama gets it too.

By the way, a sort of related. Your post about Lou Dobbs books inspired me to watch his program more carefully last night. He actually actively prosletizes for people to drop out of the parties and re-register as Independents. When one emails in and tells him they have done so, then he puts the email up on the screen and basically says "another one down, keep up the good work, people."

Posted by artappraiser | January 8, 2008 4:11 PM

Has Francis Fukuyama apologized and made penance for all the time he was on board with William the Bloody and is PNAC nonsense?

Posted by Joe Klein's conscience | January 8, 2008 4:13 PM

Well, I don't necessarily disagree with this, but it's important that it not be allowed to obviate the important retributive aspects of a functioning political system.

Basically, when a party or a group of politicians do something extraordinarily bad, they must be sufficiently punished for it that future politicians think twice about doing the same thing.

Thus, after a British admiral fought an incompetent naval battle during the 18th Century, the good gentleman was summarily hanged by his government "in order to encourage the others."

Admittedly, we're already starting to see this very healthy development in American society, with Bill Kristol now having been promoted to the New York Times...

Posted by RKU | January 8, 2008 4:15 PM

What's the name of your book gonna be again?

"Why Jonah Goldberg is an ass, and why I know more about foreign policy(and did I tell you, Jonah likes goats too!!)"

Posted by Joe Klein's conscience | January 8, 2008 4:16 PM

Oddly enough, I don't see much of a recommendation in that article other than "don't do what Bush did." Iraq may be a giant powder keg at this point. It is not clear to me how just taking troops away solves that - nor does just moving troops to Afghanistan and Pakistan necessarily help there. The question is not, "how many troops and where?" but "what are the troops supposed to do when they get there?"

Pakistan is likely to be the next big challenge. For all the issues with Iraq as an artificial state, Pakistan is several times worse. And it has an unstable government and nuclear weapons. A debate on what to do would be welcome - "send more troops there" is not much of an answer.

Posted by FuzzyFace | January 8, 2008 4:38 PM

"Building alliances with the more sensible moderate Republicans, paleocons, libertarians, etc. is, I think, essential to beating back the tide of horrors."
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
True, but then you'd still have to deal with Chuck Norris.

Posted by steve duncan | January 8, 2008 4:40 PM

Katulis writes about a repudiation of Bush's failed policies, but his language here I think misses how these issues are already being misrepresented by Republicans in order to ensure that their failure will go on. Specifically, I'm referring to the passage where Katulis says:

Though about 1 percent to 2 percent of these Iraqis have returned to their homes and the violence has subsided, the fundamental objective of the 2007 U.S. troop surge -- to advance Iraq's political transition and strike a sustainable power-sharing deal among Iraq's leaders -- remains elusive. The recent efforts to support competing security forces in Iraq could amount to little more than arming up different sides of Iraq's internal conflicts and producing an even deadlier environment in the years to come.

The fact that Petraeus is repeating the failed strategies of Aethelred the Unready will be buried under the loud and repeated Republican CTRL-Ving of "Bush was right, you libbyruls just can't admit it." The present Bush strategy of buying off the enemies he can't beat, so they'll be stronger later, is designed to blow up in the face of a Democratic president.
.

Posted by Grand Moff Texan | January 8, 2008 4:50 PM

"Building alliances with the more sensible moderate Republicans, paleocons, libertarians, etc. is, I think, essential to beating back the tide of horrors" ...MY

You and Obama do it, I can't. Been there done that, the repressed always returned with a vengeance.

Good luck. I'll go hiking.

Posted by bob mcmanus | January 8, 2008 4:58 PM

I see people posting about bipartisanship as if it's an all or nothing thing. It seems to me that there are areas that are fertile for bipartisanship and other areas where the parties can agree to disagree. I think the way you would distinguish them is by the size of the effect they have on the american people (or by how many americans are affected) and the how urgently action is required

For instance: taxes, health care, social security/medicaid, education, trade all have a profound effect on most americans. These are areas where the majority of people would really rather just see things that work. HEalthcare is a good example. Most peoplke don't care if it's single payer or whatever, they just don't want to pay $1000 a month and rising. This is good area for bipartisan cooperation, which means to me basically just ditch the ideologues--because people realize that we need to do something and that makes them more flexible. What comes out of that is going to be a compromise, but hopefully it is a compromise in the right direction, as opposed to gridlock or one party pushing through something heinious (though heaveliy drapped in propoganda) ideological restricted soloution. That is the attraction bipartisanship holds for me: hopefull you dispense with inflexible ideology, and go utilitarian.

There are other issues that effect fewer americans and so americans don't really have this urge need to solve them: abortion, gay marriage, etc... They can afford to argue over it for an indefinite amount of time. Forget bipartisanship on this. Let people be intransagent.

Posted by cw | January 8, 2008 5:04 PM

Basically, during 2002-2003 we saw pernicious factions take control of both political parties.

Could you specify who might have been in this pernicious, apparently nonmoderate faction that was in control of the Democrats?

Posted by KCinDC | January 8, 2008 5:05 PM

There is nothing wrong with the goal of attempting to secure some measure of bipartisan consensus around an intelligent foreign policy that responds to the global challenges of 2008 in some reasonably, bold, courageous and imaginative way.

But when established foreign policy types talk about bipartisanship, they typically mean getting a bunch of clubbable people together representing most of the tired, traditional ideas of both parties, and then splitting the differences between the two groups. What you get is the lame and visionless Stanley Foundation agenda: just another 90's-style neoliberal rehash with some "war on terror" and "long war" stuff sprinkled in. It is shockingly short on specifics, and manages to avoid even abstract discussion of several vital global security issues on which one would think there is a crying need for global cooperation.

It's a document written by investment bankers, corporate image consultants, speechwriters and foreign service types who occupy a world of boardrooms and government offices floating serenely over the real world.

So, more globalization through free trade; more emphasis on private investment and "leveraging" of the private sector; more of that good-old Bretton Woods financial governance and tutelage with a few vaguely specified reforms; more effective communications strategies for governments who need help educating their misguided peasants about the wonders of the invisible hand and "dislocations" that seem to dislocate everyone except those doing the dislocating. There is also a stirring call for rebuilding domestic support behind corporation-friendly foreign policy, an effort that "must begin promptly and focus on an integrated approach to the public and private frameworks that create positive linkages between policies and results." Are you moved yet?

These are people who don't listen to anybody but themselves. When the HMS Bipartisan Global Capitalism is nudged off course by dangerous radicals like Bush, they gather the sailing team together at the yacht club to re-chart a straight and steady course. Complaints and new ideas from all of those noisy and dirty people down below are just an indication of failed communications strategies. What does the world need in 2008? Better speechwriters and image consultants!

There are a couple of good ideas in there about combating corruption and dropping US trade barriers to foreign agriculture, along with the vague fluff about the "battle of ideas". But these guys just don't get it.

Posted by Dan Kervick | January 8, 2008 5:26 PM

Word RKU. Under normal circumstances, bipartisanship, and focusing on idea's and not individuals has a certain noble obviousness, - but these are far from normal circumstants, and the fascists in the Bush government are far from normal political beasts.

In these blurred, slurred, slimey, deceptive, and perilous circumstances, and considering the well documented Bush governments radical abuses, deception, acts of malfeasance and perfidy, woeful disregard of, and disdain for the Constitution and the rule of law, and obscene wanton ruthless profiteering, - focusing on the cataclysmic failures and odious conduct of culpable individuals is not only justified, - but necessary.

There is simply no hope for bipartisanship, civility, goodwill, fairplay, or the rule of law when confrontings fascists. Thier obdurate, arrogant, and rigid opinions and machinations will not be swayed, tempered, or altered in any by talk.

"Deliver us from evil!"

Posted by Tony Foresta | January 8, 2008 5:47 PM

Basically, during 2002-2003 we saw pernicious factions take control of both political parties.

Uh, yeah.....

Wasn't Yglesias cheering them on at the time?

Posted by sglover | January 8, 2008 6:12 PM

Wasn't Yglesias cheering them on at the time?

I was. What do you want me to do, stand by bad ideas forever for the sake of consistency?

Posted by Matthew Yglesias | January 8, 2008 6:58 PM

RKU appears to be referring to Admiral Byng. Wikipedia perpetuates the myth. I'll refer you to the work of Dudley Pope, who has investigated in depth:

Admiral John Byng was shot on the deck of his ship, the HMS Monarch, at 12pm on March 14 1757. His offence was nothing more than following the orders of his superiors. Having ignored warnings of an imminent French invasion of Minorca, the British Navy sent a small, poorly armed and poorly led fleet to repulse them, and ordered the fleet to follow tactics which were 50 years out of date. When the offensive failed, Byng was accused of "not doing his utmost". The court, while clearing Byng of cowardice, misunderstood the wording of the charge and sentenced him to death for an error of judgement, which was no offence. Byng died bravely, giving the signal to the firing squad for his own execution. His death saved the guilty men. He was one of the bravest men ever, the victim of a conspiracy which involved the highest officials of the British Navy.

Posted by Meh | January 8, 2008 7:39 PM

Of course the real question about bipartisan efforts in the Senate in the modern world is, how many reliable votes do you have?

Better have damn near 60, otherwise the Republicans will take great joy in thwarting your agenda.

The rise of the party machine, the power of central funding, makes Republican Senators much more likely to toe the party line than in the past. That's a real problem for "bipartisan theory."

Posted by Meh | January 8, 2008 7:42 PM

Interesting post. Shorter Yglesias - "People who disagree with me on foreign policy are wrong, regardless of their party. People who agree with me are right, regardless of their party."

I feel the same way. Thanks for the insight.

Posted by mike | January 9, 2008 11:04 AM