Democrats don't need an anti-war candidate
Yes, you read me right.
The search for the most pure anti-war candidate among the Democrats is an exercise in futility, backward thinking, and self-defeat.
Yes, the Iraq war is wrong. Yes, the Iraq war was always wrong. Yes, it would have been great if someone had stood up to President Bush at the time he was planning this ass-backward, imperialist invasion. But the problem is this is not 2003, or even 2004. This is 2007. The Iraq problem now is how do we leave their country in a way that minimizes the threat of expanding into a possible regional civil war. It does not matter what various Senators wish they had done or might have done in 2003. George W. Bush was the president in 2003 and he was going to find a way to go to war and invade Iraq one way or another. It's doubtful that one or two or even ten principled senators could have done much about that.
The debate about which candidate was or is the most anti-Iraq war, to paraphrase John Kerry, is the wrong debate about the wrong topic at the wrong time. This war is effectively over, and what's left will certainly be played out by 2008.
What we need to debate is a Democratic vision for what American foreign policy should be going forward. What are the big issues, and how will we tackle them? How will we respond when the Republicans bring up their worn-out "war on terror?"
I'm no foreign policy maven, but here are some of the ideas I'd like to hear discussed:
-The US needs to take a lead role in building international institutions and international law, because the problems of the present and the future - terrorism, disease, global warming - are going to be international by definition and will only have international solutions. We need to build a foreign policy based on universal human rights, finding common ground between different points of view, and mutual respect bewteen nations. This will also harness rising powers such as India and China so that they become additional reinforcements for international law rather than potential rivals in a unipolar world.
-The idea that we are world citizens, that we are one planet and one people. Instead of "God Bless America" I'd like to hear "God Bless the Whole World." We are moving to an age where we are more interdependent than ever, and our fates are linked to the fates of people everywhere. As such, the US should lead the effort to end global poverty according to current UN plans.
-The idea that we have to live up to the moral standards we want other nations to aspire to. If we believe in human rights, then we have to give a fair hearing to our "enemy non-combatants" so we prove that they aren't just someone we picked up by accident. We have to end the current US policy of torture. We need to reinstate the rule of law and agree to crucial international standards such as the Geneva Conventions.
In short, there is a whole lot to discuss. As long as we limit ourselves to Iraq, we will be fighting about the small differences that divide us instead of the big visions which unite us. As long as we talk about Iraq, we will be talking about Mr. Bush's failed policies and not our vision for the future and how we can do better.
In 2006, it was enough for Democrats not to be Republican for us to win. But in 2008, we can do better - we can lay out a vision of America that reflects our values of compassion, responsibility, and fairness. And a pro-active and engaged American foreign policy has got to be part of that vision.
The search for the most pure anti-war candidate among the Democrats is an exercise in futility, backward thinking, and self-defeat.
Yes, the Iraq war is wrong. Yes, the Iraq war was always wrong. Yes, it would have been great if someone had stood up to President Bush at the time he was planning this ass-backward, imperialist invasion. But the problem is this is not 2003, or even 2004. This is 2007. The Iraq problem now is how do we leave their country in a way that minimizes the threat of expanding into a possible regional civil war. It does not matter what various Senators wish they had done or might have done in 2003. George W. Bush was the president in 2003 and he was going to find a way to go to war and invade Iraq one way or another. It's doubtful that one or two or even ten principled senators could have done much about that.
The debate about which candidate was or is the most anti-Iraq war, to paraphrase John Kerry, is the wrong debate about the wrong topic at the wrong time. This war is effectively over, and what's left will certainly be played out by 2008.
What we need to debate is a Democratic vision for what American foreign policy should be going forward. What are the big issues, and how will we tackle them? How will we respond when the Republicans bring up their worn-out "war on terror?"
I'm no foreign policy maven, but here are some of the ideas I'd like to hear discussed:
-The US needs to take a lead role in building international institutions and international law, because the problems of the present and the future - terrorism, disease, global warming - are going to be international by definition and will only have international solutions. We need to build a foreign policy based on universal human rights, finding common ground between different points of view, and mutual respect bewteen nations. This will also harness rising powers such as India and China so that they become additional reinforcements for international law rather than potential rivals in a unipolar world.
-The idea that we are world citizens, that we are one planet and one people. Instead of "God Bless America" I'd like to hear "God Bless the Whole World." We are moving to an age where we are more interdependent than ever, and our fates are linked to the fates of people everywhere. As such, the US should lead the effort to end global poverty according to current UN plans.
-The idea that we have to live up to the moral standards we want other nations to aspire to. If we believe in human rights, then we have to give a fair hearing to our "enemy non-combatants" so we prove that they aren't just someone we picked up by accident. We have to end the current US policy of torture. We need to reinstate the rule of law and agree to crucial international standards such as the Geneva Conventions.
In short, there is a whole lot to discuss. As long as we limit ourselves to Iraq, we will be fighting about the small differences that divide us instead of the big visions which unite us. As long as we talk about Iraq, we will be talking about Mr. Bush's failed policies and not our vision for the future and how we can do better.
In 2006, it was enough for Democrats not to be Republican for us to win. But in 2008, we can do better - we can lay out a vision of America that reflects our values of compassion, responsibility, and fairness. And a pro-active and engaged American foreign policy has got to be part of that vision.
Comments
No matter if they knew the right thing in 2003, do they know it NOW????
What can they tell the world about our vision?
Are they on the side of People or Money?
Do they believe in the rule of law and separation of powers and checks and balances?
Are they honest!!??!!??