In my rambling weekend post here, I asked:
Is it just me, or is the Right far more interested in foreign policy than the Left? [...]
You know the idea: Vote democrat locally, but republican nationally. Could foreign policy have a major psychological influence in that? I think so. Should the Left be a little more attentive? Obviously, but why isn't it?
David Adesnik picks up the scent from progressive American Prospect's question about favorite books of the last 15 years.
The American Prospect recently asked more than twenty prominent liberals to name the most important liberal book written in the last fifteen years. The fact that only three of those twenty-plus commentators mentioned a book about foreign policy or national security tells you a lot about why the American public feels safer with Bush in the White House even though they disapprove of his policies.
Moreover, it's not just the fact that so few of the books are about foreign policy, but also the way in which the books approach the subject that convey the mismatch between liberal foreign policy and the concerns of the American majoirty.
For example, Harvard professor and terrorism expert Jessica Stern recommends Corporate Warriors: The Rise of the Privatized Military Industry by Peter W. Singer. Stern writes thatSinger examines corporate mercenaries who kill for pro?t -- sometimes bene?ting the world through peacekeeping missions, and sometimes bene?ting only themselves.
Lots of folks I respect have praised Singer's work. But is corporate influence on national security really a defining issue for American liberalism? And if it were, would the American public see the Democratic Party as having its priorities straight?
In defense of Stern, it is worth noting that the Prospect demanded very rapid responses from those whom it polled about the most important books of the last fifteen years. Yet if the Prospect had directed its question my way, it would've taken me all of fifteen seconds to come up with my answer: "A Problem From Hell": America and the Age of Genocide by Samantha Power.
Four books popped into my right leaning head when I considered the question. Like Adesnik, I thought immediately of Power's Pulitizer winner along with a quick but powerful read written shortly after 9-11 by (progressive minded) Shibley Telhami, The Stakes; and (Liebermanish neoconservative leaning) Dore Gold's, Hatred's Kingdom; also (Nobel laureate) Joseph Stigletz', The Roaring 90s. Three of those address global unrest and terrorism, and one is an indepth analysis of globalization, the successes and failures of the Clinton years. If forced to make a quick decision, I would have selected the same book as Adesnik, A Problem From Hell.
Adesnik adds to my curiousity about the left and global issues:
And so what about all the books not about foreign policy? The first thing I noticed was how many of them are about race, civil rights, and/or the 1960s. Walter Mondale recommends Judgment Days, which is about the relationship between LBJ and Martin Luther King Jr. The list also includes books about civil rights organizers in Mississippi, the life of W.E.B. DuBois, the legislative work of LBJ, and assorted others.
Naturally, liberals should celebrate the great triumphs of the past. But none of these subjects has much potential to serve as the foundation of a strong progressive, liberal, Democratic movement for the 21st century.
Is it priorities? In this global information age, it's going to be hard to squeeze Americans voting for president with policy concerns inside our national borders. They are important, and are addressed by both parties. That's not the point. Since 9-11 Americans are looking inside other borders, and the apparatus for addressing those concerns is the executive branch. Oddly, to me anyway, is the major issues abroad are right in liberal's wheelhouse-- oppression, tyranny, hunger, suffrage, cultural and ethnic divisions, human rights-- yet, they barely address the topics. I recommend a loud symphany in opposition to Khartoum.
Adesnik noted the books chosen by progressives are about human rights, but they dwell on national history, not the international issues currently driving the GOP.
I'm also wondering if the Right hasn't hijacked the debate. If you oppose President Pre-emptive War, you're unAmerican, not supporting the troops, soft on terror. Which is garbage, but it's going to take more than platitudes to expose the refuse. It had to be disheartening to hear prominent Democrats correcting the media and backing the president.
John Stewart recently had Howard Dean on the Daily show. Stewart posed a simple question, paraphrasing because I cannot find the transcript, "Why doesn't the loyal opposition come forward with a counter agenda. You know? When the republicans say this is what we're doing, why not offer what you would do instead?"
Dean said that was a great idea and they should do that, and they are or they would, and then it was sort of uncomfortable because... well, they're not, or perhaps more accurately, they're not to any respectable degree. Which bothers me. They're employed full-time, empowered by their constituents to do that. Yet, a history teacher writing part-time has plenty of time to do the lion's share of the work for them, as far as I can tell.
Maybe the answer lies in American Prospect's opening line:
There have been lots of great progressive books in the last 15 years, so we asked lots of people we like to tell us -- quickly! -- their favorite one.
Maybe progressive foreign affairs texts are in limited supply. Again, why?
-- Zap
On offering up non-neocon alternatives:
Harry Reid rubber stamps 4 GOP Sens for the next SCOTUS vacancy.
Is it more political PR than substantive dialogue? Yes. Were Bush to nominate any of these four, is Reid essentially pledging to back them as a party? Yes. So for whatever it's worth, alternatives are being proffered.
One complicating factor is that it's stupid to offer an alternative to a plan that doesn't exist. The whole "Dems have nothing to offer on Social Security" thing is not only generally false--they have offered raising the cap, raising the rate, and cutting some benefits, or private accounts as add-ons rather than carve-outs--but it ignores the fact that the White House and GOP leadership haven't offered an actual plan for SS privatization, either. They've alluded to how it might work, but no plan. Why? Because plans can be attacked, and if you're the only one with a plan out there, yours will be the one attacked.
On topic, I'd be more persuaded about the utility of the thesis if they had asked 20 conservatives what the most important book of the last 15 years was, to compare...
Posted by: Torridjoe | June 29, 2005 at 16:13
Good point. It's that PR machine driving the media message and even John Stewart played along. Had Dean been on his toes and responded like you just did, that would have been sweet.
On topic, I think a similar question was recently asked of the right, but it was specifically about philosophy. I'll seek it and share if it applies. BUT really, just surf both sides of the fence and it does become apparent that there is less focus on international issues on the left than on the right.
I spent some time at PNAC last night trying to write something about them and Iraq, and they have provided a veritable non-stop, drum pounding, war mongering, discourse on foreign policy since 97. BTW, I did discover Democracy Arsenal this week and added them to the left. Nice blog on topic.
Posted by: Zap | June 29, 2005 at 17:00
Zap. That is great you are adding links for your readers, but I have been trying to tell you that you have problems with some of your links. "Joe Gandelman" is suppose to go to http://themoderatevoice.typepad.com/ and there is nothing there. I tried in Firefox and IE with no success.
Linkchecker which an extension for Firefox will check any web page for good, bad and misdirected links. I e-mailed you with a sample of the work.
Thanks for all the good posts!
Posted by: Ron Rutherford | June 29, 2005 at 17:51
Sorry to ask one more queestion...
Do you belong to the The Big Brass Alliance.
The Big Brass Alliance was formed in May 2005 as a collective of progressive bloggers who support After Downing Street, a coalition of veterans' groups, peace groups, and political activist groups formed to urge that the U.S. Congress launch a formal investigation into whether President Bush has committed impeachable offenses in connection with the Iraq war. The campaign focuses on evidence that recently emerged in a British memo containing minutes of a secret July 2002 meeting with British Prime Minister Tony Blair and his top national security officials.
I have not seen any mention on your posts???
Posted by: Ron Rutherford | June 29, 2005 at 18:39
Yeah, Torrid signed us up for BBA, which I support. Mostly, I'm a supportive observer, and I am not surprised at all by the DSMs, or the media's lack of any real investigative reporting. I think I have to make the extra effort to trackback to link posts from here there, and well... I'm lazy like that. Nor have I written much on the topic. If I do, I will link it up there.
Gandelman moved around. He was over at Dean's World then he quit or something, then he started back with guest bloggers. I'll fix the link. I've noticed some of my think tanks are not linked properly also. Anything else you noticed?
Posted by: Zap | June 29, 2005 at 19:28
Ran the linkchecker, thanks. Sheesh, I was amazed how very few (2) were bad.
Posted by: Zap | June 29, 2005 at 20:59
Ron, I'll have to check linkchecker out. I'm still frustrated now and again when things aren't formatted properly for Firefox, but otherwise it kicks some royal ass.
On BBA:
That was me. I try to keep "alliances" to a minimum. Also Also was selected as a front-page syndicated site to the Northwest Portal, so we're proud to raise their banner. Beyond that I want to respect our co-founding nature, but we're of the same mind on the memos. I have not specifically posted on the need for an investigation into impeachment; although I believe the President certainly deserves it in this case, I am very fearful of the pattern set if each of the last two Presidents is impeached. If it happened I would support it, but I will not advocate strongly for it at this time.
However, we have produced some posts on the DSM. Before it disappears off the "recent" list, check out "DSM -type Stuff: Front Page News."
Posted by: Torrid | June 29, 2005 at 22:55
If you are interested in talking about blogging and weblogs, would you mind opening up an open thread? Maybe Firefox. I hate it when we are too far off a specific subject.
Posted by: Ron Rutherford | June 30, 2005 at 12:03