Democrats and Foreign Policy

I agree with Yglesias' Los Angeles Times editorial where he argues that Democrats lack a coherent foreign policy to counter Bush. As one would expect from an expert on current politics, Yglesias focuses on the policy plans of current Democratic candidates. He claims that

"Unfortunately, this sort of muddle on the part of the front-runners has been typical of the Democratic performance on national security ever since 9/11. One sees, repeatedly, little inclination to face the issues squarely."

He's right but the issue is greater--Democrats have had this problem since Vietnam. Since 1973, Democrats have tended to fall two ways on foreign policy--isolation and Republican-lite positions on trade and intervention, i.e. the Clinton administration.

The party, and especially its base, have largely refused to discuss seriously just what exactly the US role in the world is, and particularly the role of the U.S. military, for the last 35 years. Now I'm at least theoretically OK with acknowledging a foreign policy with a greatly shrunken military and severely limiting the situations in which that military will be used. But a real policy of what our foreign policy badly needs to be articulated.

As for the present, what is the Democratic policy on terrorism? To say we would not have invaded Iraq is not enough. This fact should be stressed repeatedly for the next two decades, but it doesn't tell us anything about how to fight terrorism, deal with North Korea, provide the environmental and economic protections for workers at home and abroad that many Democrats want. Specifically, what should we do about Afghanistan? Pakistan? Israel-Palestine? Trade? Climate change and environmental problems? The only response from too much of the Democratic base toward any kind of US role in the world is "NO!" and perhaps vague platitudes toward "peace" however defined.

Until Democrats, and not just the politicians but the rest of us too, think about, discuss, create, and articulate a real foreign policy, we remain vulnerable to the Republicans on this issue. Moreover, this vulnerability will allow the kind of quasi-Republicans that dominated foreign policy during the Clinton years to play major roles in the next Democratic administration too.