Demanding A Democratic Response To Neoconservatism
The 2020 election cycle has arrived and the Democrats need a message. With a Republican incumbent (who may be in for a primary challenge), all eyes are on the Democratic field. All Democrats can agree on one thing: at least their nominee won’t be Trump. But such a declaration dismisses the meaningful policy discussions that should be had every election cycle, even with one where Democrats couldn’t possibly detest their opponent more.[su_pullquote]The 2020 election cycle has arrived and the Democrats need a message.[/su_pullquote]
Democratic foreign policy needs to change. Under Clinton, the policy was “Do something.” In a post-Cold War world, the U.S. no longer had a lodestar by which to lead strategy. So, the foreign policy establishment flailed about. With the vague goal of “democracy promotion,” the administration produced some positive results, including establishing democracy in Haiti and preventing genocide against Muslims in Kosovo. But in two of its greatest embarrassments, the administration rendered disasters in Bosnia and Rwanda, where hundreds of thousands died. In the U.S.’s first decade after the Cold War, egregious mistakes were made that our republic couldn’t afford to repeat.
Under Obama, it was “Don’t muck it up.” Obama’s predecessor, George W. Bush, gave rise to this policy because of the latter’s two wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. Obama made it a point to prevent further costly disasters from happening. But Obama’s policy paralyzed a superpower that should never have allowed the Syrian, Yemeni, and Libyan civil wars to take place. This strategy stopped us from preventing the 2014 Russian invasion of Crimea and the subsequent tampering with our 2016 presidential elections. We did nothing while Venezuela deteriorated into a starving socialist dictatorship, which has precipitated a refugee crisis in South America. The blood of innocents, like that in Rwanda, is on our hands because of our ability but failure to act.
[su_pullquote align=”right”]Beyond whataboutism, what do the Democrats have to offer?[/su_pullquote]On the Republican side, one can deride George W. Bush’s foreign policy all they want, but it at least had a clear and attempted purpose: to spread democracy no matter the cost. Now, under Trump, one could critique the current administration’s foreign policy on the basis that it has no coherence; but beyond whataboutism, what do the Democrats have to offer?
This is an important question to ask, especially since foreign policy is more polarized than ever. Democrats and Republicans disagree on the threat level posed by Russia. Democrats and Republicans disagree on the validity of trade deals. Democrats and Republicans disagree on the implementation of military intervention. If there is to be a gap, both parties should be leading their constituencies. Republicans lead Democratic constituencies indirectly by having their own ideas and forcing the Left to react. Unfortunately, this problem of reaction has already been displayed this cycle.
Candidates have started publishing platforms. Senator Elizabeth Warren (D-MA), for example, published an overview of what her foreign policy would look like in Foreign Affairs. Firstly, this article on foreign policy was short on foreign policy. Warren took greater pains to outline a “domestic policy for all” that was tied to foreign policy rather than create specific international goals like the spread of democracy. Secondly, she included support for free trade, support for allies, and denigration of autocracy. Her article brings up two questions. One, domestic policy is nice, but when will Democrats understand that while foreign and domestic policy are connected, there must be a plan for both? And two, without Trump’s policies as a foil, what about Warren’s policies is so enticing?
Given rising populism and autocracy, a new recession (according to the New York Times), a Middle East led by Iran, a revanchist Russia, and a rising China, Democrats need to distinguish themselves as a party with a plan, not as a party that isn’t the Republicans. Yes, the foreign policy intelligentsia repeats again and again how awful Trump is. No, Democrats should not just join in.
What should be demanded of Warren and other candidates is solid declarations of policy. Declarations like “We need to rejoin the Iran Deal” or “We need to arm the opposition in Venezuela” or “We need to sanction Mohammed bin Salman.” I don’t necessarily agree with these statements, but it would be nice to have something.
[su_pullquote]The American people deserve two things of the administration elected: one, coherency, and two, a proactive strategy.[/su_pullquote]Regardless of whether a Democrat wins in the coming election, the American people deserve two things of the administration elected: one, coherency, and two, a proactive strategy. As a new decade dawns and the problems of the world grow evermore legion, Americans want leadership that is not merely preoccupied with erasing the legacy of the last administration. Though it might seem obvious, such action is petty and counterproductive. So it was for Obama and so it is for Trump.
Nicholas Kinberg ‘20 studies in the College of Arts & Sciences. He can be reached at nicholaskinberg@wustl.edu.