Count me in
by digby
Senator Chris Murphy proposes that progressives articulate a progressive foreign policy. Imagine that:
Today, progressives have become at best, reactive, and at worst, absent, from serious, meaningful foreign policy debates. Part of this retrenchment is understandable given that with a Democrat in the White House, progressives are always going to be in the shadow of the Commander-in-Chief when it comes to articulating views on international events. But much of the blame for progressives’ retreat is due to simple rubber-necking. The debate within the Republican Party between the John McCain interventionists and the Rand Paul isolationists has come to pass as the beginning and end of foreign policy discussion outside of the Administration.
The dominance of the President, Senator McCain, and Senator Paul on foreign policy should trouble progressives. Why? To state the obvious, because none of these three camps adequately represents the views of most American progressives.
Of course, the neoconservative worldview is a non-starter — this philosophy of knee jerk military intervention was the original motivating force behind the modern progressive voice. Similarly, isolationism holds little attraction for us, as most progressives believe in America playing a positive role in the world. We simply believe that we should lean into the world with something other than the pointed edge of a sword.
And while many progressives agree with much of the vision outlined by President Obama in his May 2014 West Point speech, where he prioritized the use of our military for counterterrorism efforts and emphasized the need to strengthen rule of law and human rights in developing nations, we break with him on rather substantial questions like domestic surveillance, drone attacks, and most recently, military intervention in Syria.
Because the three corners of American foreign policy offer no safe refuge to progressives today, we need to square the triangle.
It’s time for progressives to outline a coherent, proactive foreign policy vision.
Frankly, it’s not hard to figure out what would be the organizing principles of this vision. A substantial transfer of financial resources from the military budget to buttress diplomacy and foreign aid so that our global anti-poverty budget, not our military budget, equals that of the other world powers combined. A new humility to our foreign policy, with less emphasis on short- term influencers like military intervention and aid, and more effort spent trying to address the root causes of conflict. An end to unchecked mass surveillance programs, at home and abroad, as part of a new recognition that we are safer as a nation when we aren’t so easily labeled as hypocrites for preaching and practicing vastly differently on human and civil rights. And a categorical rejection of torture, under any circumstances.
That sounds right to me. It used to be a given, as a matter of fact.
I’m reminded of this as we anticipate another AUMF to fight ISIS. Would a different set of priorities over the past few years have made a difference? I don’t know. But I do know that fighting two wars for the past 15 years didn’t even come close to solving the problems we face.
I don’t expect there to be much of a debate. Maybe a few tepid objections from Democrats and a speech worthy of Hamlet from Rand Paul. ISIS understood exactly what it would take to draw in the West and provide a common enemy for all the disparate middle east factions to eventually “join” the fight under their banner. Those videos are powerful propaganda. So it will happen.
But progressives need to get back into this debate if there’s to be any chance of a change in policy and worldview. If we’re counting on Rand Paul to make the argument I’m afraid this isn’t going to end well.
This seems like a good starting point.
.