« The NeoCons vs The Founders | Main | Red State Hypocrisy? »
December 06, 2004
The Miseducation of Peter Beinart
There's been some heated talk around the blogosphere over this piece by Peter Beinart. Beinart's thesis is that Democrats and liberals don't take terrorism seriously enough. Further, that liberals don't take foreign policy seriously enough.
Beinart goes through several historical examples..from World War II and the threat of fascism to communism and the Soviet Union...where Beinart feels liberals haven't given these threats their proper due.
Beinart suggests that the Democratic Party should purge itself of the likes of Michael Moore and MoveOn, who he accuses of not supporting the invasion of Afghanistan (which I personally believe is incorrect--Moore was critical of the installation of Karzai, but has gone out of his way on Afghanistan, as is my understanding). Beinart believes the "dove-ish" liberal factions of the Democratic Party are it's albatross..keeping it from shaping itself in the way it ought in order to win elections and effectively deal with America's foreign policy:
But there is little liberal passion to win the struggle against Al Qaeda--even though totalitarian Islam has killed thousands of Americans and aims to kill millions; and even though, if it gained power, its efforts to force every aspect of life into conformity with a barbaric interpretation of Islam would reign terror upon women, religious minorities, and anyone in the Muslim world with a thirst for modernity or freedom.
"Little liberal passion to win the struggle against Al Qaida"? On the contrary, I think there's a great passion for liberals to vanquish Al Qaida. My belief is that liberals think Al Qaida won't be vanquished through Cold War style warfare and forcing nations into democratic governments, as the conservatives are currently attempting.
Beinart accuses grassroots Democrats of believing that this struggle is a "mirage" or a distraction. I think he gets that partially correct. Dems and liberals that I know consider IRAQ a distraction..and make a fundamental distinction between Iraq and fighting the terrorism that came to our shores. In fact many see Iraq as making the potential for making terrorism greater.
Beinart really goes hard after Michael Moore...who seems to be the new boogeyman for people looking to come after liberals. He accuses Moore of trying to downplay Islamofascism. The problem with this argument is that Moore's points have merit: Islamofascism isn't inherently the same as Communism. It doesn't have the appeal to spread like Communism did. Further, Islamofascism hasn't the same nation state style support that Communism had.
MoveOn is another target of Beinart. I've been on MoveOn's list pretty much since it's inception and I've never once recieved anything from them indicating they were against the Afghan invasion. So if they were...they sure weren't telling the membership about it. It would seem they didn't do much to protest it in any event. It's rather weak to attack them for a stance that if is true..wasn't even apparent to it's membership.
Frankly, I find this piece really lacking in understanding of the beliefs of the vast majority of liberals. Liberals don't believe Al Qaida (who hides in Pakistan and Afghanistan) can be stopped by attacking Iraq (where they didn't exist). Further, liberals tend to believe that going to war against feelings (terrorism) and entities other than nation states is a grave error.
Personally I believe Clinton's approach (law enforcement and covert military operations) were a much more effective way to deal with Islamofacism and terrorism for a number of reasons. We didn't damage ties with important allies, we didn't incite floods of new recruits to terrorist groups and hundreds of thousands of civilians didn't have to die at the hands of our military.
Todd from Centerfield began a discussion on that blog on this topic that I think is pretty interesting. I also noted a few days ago a discussion on Kevin Drum's blog on this topic as well.
Frankly, I think it's conservatives who don't take terrorism seriously. They choose neat little labels like "The War On Terror" to market it to the American people. They haven't caught Bin Laden. They haven't stopped the funding to Al Qaida. They most certainly haven't purged the Taliban or rebuilt Afghani infrastructure, as promised. They've gone into Iraq and created an untenable situation over there. They've created many more reasons (and recruits) for terrorism than we had when Clinton was in office. They use terrorism as a bludgeon to win elections and take away civil rights.
If we're ever going to take terrorism seriously as a nation, it looks to me like we'll need liberals to take charge of government first.
Posted by Carla at December 6, 2004 08:28 AM
Trackback Pings
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.preemptivekarma.com/cgi-bin/mt/mt-tb.cgi/246
Comments
Further, liberals tend to believe that going to war against feelings (terrorism) and entities other than nation states is a grave error.
Carla, Could You further explain this line?
As far as the rest of the article goes, I don't believe that liberals don't "care" about terrorism and need to take the course of kicking out soft on terror liberals to win elections
The GOP was able to take over the message on terror and it seemed that Kerry and other leaders never seem to get their message out. I don't know how it got buried...maybe the media?
Posted by: Donald at December 6, 2004 10:44 AM
I agree with Don. It seems to me that the entire "libs are soft on terrorism" line is predicated on ignoring the profound differences between our militarily attacking Afghanistan (which liberals overwhelmingly supported) and our militarily attacking Iraq (which liberals overwhelmingly opposed).
Posted by: Kevin at December 6, 2004 10:55 AM
this isn't too much of a shock coming from TNR.
liberals don't take "foreign policy" seriously? i think that these kinds of hawks see "foreign policy" only as a means of giving us as much of a free hand as possible in using our military (which is why we cuddle up to musharraf in pakistan and the regime in uzbekistan). i think those on the left that have a problem with the way we are currently pursuing the "war on terror" think that we ought to be considering our foreign policy as a means of avoiding armed conflict (and that includes being targetted by terrorists) and not enabling it.
Posted by: alex at December 6, 2004 11:29 AM
Don:
Bush and conservatives have declared a "War on Terror". "Terror" is a feeling, not a nation. It's like declaring a "War on Drugs" or a "War on Poverty". One can't go to war against something that isn't a nation because you never know if/when you've really vanquished it. There's no formal surrender. Make sense?
I think you're right Don when you say that Kerry had trouble getting his message out. In my opinion..this is the key problem as opposed to the message itself.
Posted by: carla at December 6, 2004 12:00 PM
Makes sense Carla.
My boyfriend believes that one of the goals of the Bush Administration is to create a permanant war (or a sense of a need for a permanant war)that keeps them in power because you can never achieve a real conclusion.
And in many ways this would work because the Conservatives, rightly or wrongly, are seen as the ones we can trust to defend the nation.
Posted by: Donald at December 6, 2004 01:23 PM
I think Beinart is right in general, but wrong on the specifics. First of all, there is a real problem with how you define "liberal" opinion. Is it Bill Clinton or Michael Moore? There is clearly a difference between a more or less mainstream liberal and a Moore or Norman Mailer. Second, I do think there is a significant strand of liberal opinion (however you define it) that is opposed (1) to the idea of a US foreign policy aimed at pursuing US national interests and (2) to the idea that power and force can ever be legitimate tools of a moral foreign policy. These are the people you are going to see on places like the Daily Kos and they get a lot of attention.
And, while Carla thinks that few liberals opposed Afghanistan, I think that is not true, at least on the farther left. There were clearly many on the "left" that were not for military action in Afghanistan and believed, if anything, in bringing it to the UN and, essentially, turning it into a law enforcement function. A prime example is someone like Norman Mailer, who advocated this in The New York Review of Books.
Carla seems to agree with this, which is certainly her perogative, and it's not necessarily an unreasonable approach, but it does suggest that there was a significant segment of opinion that did oppose military action.
Now, I disagree with Beinart to the extent that he seems to be supporting Bush's policy on Iraq. IMO, there are lots of reasons to oppose his foreign policy from both a pragmatic and moral point of view. That doesn't mean that you have to oppose the general idea of an internationalist policy based on the judicious use of power. To me, that is really what Beinart is talking about; that a lot of liberals or leftists simply have a hard time accepting that foreign policy has to be based on a realistic use and appreciation of power.
Posted by: MWS at December 6, 2004 02:25 PM
Marc:
What is the "farther left"? Frankly I've not met a single liberal who didn't support going into Afghanistan..and some were a lot more left in general than I am. Could we go around the country and find 10 lefties that didn't agree with it? Maybe. But does this constitute even a relevant percentage of leftists/liberals in the nation? Of course not.
I also think you will find that this same insignifcant percentage exists on the other issues you brought forth, in general. Most all liberals believe that some degree of military force is definitely necessary in terms of defense..and that's inherent in foreign policy. That is definitely a pursuit of US interests. Perhaps if you mean something else when you say "US interests"..you could clarify?
I think it would be helpful if you could define the pirameters of what you mean by "an internationalist policy based on the judicious use of power". Does that go so far as to allow the US to invade a country in order to gain control of it's natural resources? Or does it stop merely at the US intervening to protect it's shores from an imminent attack? Or somewhere in between?
Posted by: carla at December 6, 2004 02:58 PM