The Democrats and the War
By TED WIDMER
Editorial
The New York Times
8/15/02
CHESTERTOWN, Md. — The subtext to the current debate over America's foreign policy is history — in particular, the Democratic Party's history of international engagement. Republicans are dismissive of it; Democrats have forgotten it. Neither approach serves the country.
The most recent example was the reaction to Senator John Kerry's speech last month about United States foreign policy, in which he criticized the Bush administration's conduct of the war in Afghanistan and its looming but still sketchy plans for an invasion of Iraq. Reaction from the White House was unsurprisingly partisan: "The closer it gets to the election," said Ari Fleischer, the White House spokesman, "the more the Democrats will be tugged to the left and the more divisive they'll become." Many Democrats, meanwhile, were unenthusiastic. One strategist said Democrats should focus on national issues and not talk about foreign policy at all.
These responses suggest that Mr. Kerry is on to something. First there is the curious Republican notion that it is somehow "divisive" to seek a better-defined foreign policy. Then there is the strange Democratic reluctance to engage in a serious discussion about one of the most important issues now facing the country.
Thus both parties are ignoring the constitutional responsibility of the Senate and the long history of Democratic internationalism. A genuine bipartisan debate, reviving this history, will go a long way toward sharpening our policy and enlisting the support of all Americans.
Fifty years ago, the Republican Party was unambiguously the party of isolation. In 1952, Americans elected a Republican president, Dwight D. Eisenhower, and a Republican majority in the Senate. After decades of Roosevelt and Truman, America-firsters were ecstatic — and soon after the inaugural, the Republicans nearly succeeded in crippling the president's ability to conduct foreign policy.
The Bricker amendment, introduced by Senator John Bricker, Republican of Ohio, would have severely curtailed the executive's ability to negotiate treaties and engage American troops, making him accountable not only to Congress, but also to 48 state governments. It was Senate Democrats, as Robert Caro shows in his latest book, who blocked this amendment.
Throughout the 20th century, Democrats led America's great international efforts — including both World Wars, the thwarted attempt to join the League of Nations and the more successful struggles in the late 1940's to create the United Nations and NATO. Those policies were improved when great Republican voices, like Arthur Vandenberg's, helped to shape them. And those policies were threatened when knee-jerk resistance came from the isolationists, usually in Republican precincts in the upper West and Midwest. Some honestly believed that any attempt to send American boys overseas was immoral. Others, like Joe McCarthy, criticized what they saw as "Democratic" foreign policy — the Marshall Plan, containment, anything said by Dean Acheson — to advance their own darker designs.
McCarthy's accusations were ludicrous. But there may be some truth to the idea that Democrats are generally more eager to join American interests to the rest of the world. Democrats are not always right, to put it mildly. But they generally get the idea that America is stronger leading others than standing alone.
This activist legacy should be a source of pride for Democrats in Congress. Yet surprisingly few include foreign policy in their portfolio. Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle has been notably reticent about foreign policy since his patriotism was questioned in February after he criticized the Bush administration's war on terrorism. Leading Democratic senators, for their part, have not offered him much support.
Part of the problem is the subtle perception, fed by Republican strategists, that Democrats lack the credentials to conduct foreign policy and oversee defense matters. It is difficult to know when Republicans began to make this argument — or when Democrats began to believe it.
Certainly there was no trace of the idea a generation ago; from 1960 to 1984, every Democratic presidential candidate except Jimmy Carter was a current or former senator with strong foreign-policy credentials. Perhaps the travails of our hostages in Iran had something to do with it, and the fact that their release coincided so neatly with President Ronald Reagan's inauguration. Some damage was surely self-inflicted; Michael Dukakis's ill-advised ride in a tank did little to reassure voters of his defense expertise.
Another part of the explanation is demographic, not political. Ten years ago, Democrats sensed a growing ennui with foreign policy — an accurate perception that helped win Bill Clinton the White House. The 2000 campaign focused less on foreign policy than any campaign in memory.
Now foreign policy is a growth area again. Democrats — particularly presidential contenders — have much to gain by shaping their posture to a set of issues around the world that demand real leadership. Not just because these issues are vitally important, but because many of our most enlightened policies are traceable to the Clinton administration. Clearly, the Republicans are quick learners. More than a few of the policies denounced by the Bush campaign have been quietly embraced by the Bush administration, to its credit: economic bailouts, so-called nation-building and strategic cooperation with Russia and China.
But more needs to be done. Any attempt to build peace in the Middle East will have as its starting point the Clinton proposals. In North Korea, the Balkans and Northern Ireland, we need to avoid the tragedy of backsliding after years of hard work. An urgent case like Iraq warrants a full and open conversation between political leaders of all persuasions.
Partisanship may explain the nervous response to Mr. Kerry's critique. But it is wrong to stigmatize a senator — especially one from the party of Fulbright, Mansfield and Muskie — as "divisive" merely because he demonstrates a healthy curiosity about the future of our foreign policy. Not only is this accusation historically inaccurate but, to use one of McCarthy's favorite words, it is also un-American.
_____________________________________________
Ted Widmer, director of the C.V. Starr Center for the Study of the American Experience at Washington College, was director of speechwriting at the National Security Council from 1997 to 2000.
nytimes.com |
