[Foreign Policy]

Where are the Dems?

Here's a scary thought: the most articulate foreign policy voice in the Democratic Party is … a grieving mother. (Okay, that’s not entirely true–Russ Feingold seems to have given the question some thought.) There’s a serious problem with any party that fails to craft a coherent foreign policy. It’s unforgivable during wartime. Yet that’s what’s happening.

There seem to be three schools of thought among Democrats: 1) support the neocon invade-first position and then transition quickly to domestic issues; 2) ridicule Bush for incompetence and lies and then transition quickly to domestice issues; 3) just stick with domestic issues. The problem is that ignoring foreign policy hasn’t won Dems many elections lately. Shifting to domestic issues puts candidates on firmer ground, but it doesn’t hide the fact that they don’t have a coherent foreign policy plan. Oh, and then there’s this: we need a foreign policy. We’re in a war and we’ve got lunatics trying to bomb our cities. While it’s true that Bush has bungled Iraq, that observation doesn’t actually do us any good.

As Joan Vennochi points out in today's Globe:

[O]n Iraq, a big disconnect exists between what registered Democrats believe about the war and what elected Democratic officials and alleged party leaders like Howard Dean are willing to do. Only two Democratic officeholders -- Representatives John Conyers of Michigan and Cynthia McKinney of Georgia -- planned to be anywhere near the antiwar rally scheduled this weekend in Washington. Forget about standing up alongside Michael Moore. Merely speaking up against the war in Iraq continues to terrify Democrats.

If I had to diagnose the Democratic fugue state, I'd say it stems from accepting the GOP frame: either you're for war or you're for the terrorists. America has exactly flip-flopped from its early 20th-century reluctance to enter foreign wars. Where Roosevelt was pulling out his hair trying to get Americans to understand the danger of a Nazi romp in Europe, all Bush has to do is declare a country "evil." Where the pro-war stance was political death in the first world wars (Wilson famously won as the "antiwar" candidate), now pacifism is. It is American to kick ass, and no Democrat wants to look weak or unAmerican.

Well, maybe it's time to challenge the frame. If war is not the answer--and every Democrat should now be on record as saying the Iraq war was not--what is? Bush wants to hold the line because he sees no other alternative. But do Dems really lack other ideas? This is the perfect moment for a coordinated challenge to the failed ruling foreign policy--it is early enough to affect the midterms, and would lay the groundwork for Americans accepting a completely new frame by 2008 (which would, incidently, free us from the useless hot air of national leaders like Joe Biden--whom I actually love--who offer something like "responsible neoconservatism").

I have a few ideas, but I'm wondering if others in the blogosphere do, too. If you were to start from scratch and craft a new foreign policy, what would it look like? (Maybe the Dems, apparently bereft of their own ideas, will listen.)

(originally posted at The American Street)