Since I'm not wild about any of them (0.00 / 0)

And have already been burned out by all the flaming, I hope that this works out and I can actually get excited about a candidate.  Right now, everything Presidential-related that I've seen online has just horribly depressed my otherwise optimistic view of the potential and growth of progressivism.  How much has changed if it stops being a movement as soon as there's a contested primary?

John McCain opposes the GI Bill.

---

by: Lucas O'Connor @ Fri Jul 27, 2007 at 15:41:06 PM CDT

Interesting (0.00 / 0)

that he says he only "thinks" he woulda voted against the AUMF. Anyhoo, I'm not sure rejecting preemptive strike doctrine is a very high bar to clear--Edwards clears it here with room to spare. It's but a small part of his critique of Bushian foreign policy.

Tavis: Speaking about moral authority to lead, you've been very clear, obviously - certainly given your speech today and all you had to say about it heretofore - you're very clear on where you stand on Iraq, and we can talk more about that in a second.But I'm pretty clear on that.What I've been anxious to ask you is what you make of this so-called Bush doctrine - that is to say, this notion of preemptive strike.

We hit you first, ask questions later, and that has become - that's a major change, as you well know, in U.S. policy and how we engage the world.So let's set Iraq aside for just a moment, although it's a perfect example.Where do you stand on this so-called Bush doctrine of preemptive strike?

Edwards: It was completely unnecessary and has done incredible damage to America.I spoke about that earlier today at the Council on Foreign Relations in New York.The President of the United States has always had the authority to take the necessary steps to keep our country safe and to protect our allies.All this did, announcing this preemptive strike doctrine, all it did was create provocation for people around the world who either were already antagonistic to America or were ambivalent about America. And so it did exactly the opposite of what it theoretically was intended to do, and I'm against it.I don't think it's necessary.

http://www.pbs.org/k...

---

by: david mizner @ Fri Jul 27, 2007 at 16:34:25 PM CDT

Right on (0.00 / 0)

I am very glad to see this approach. I do think all of us, whether we have chosen a candidate or not, should be focused on how we can use this incredible moment in time to continue defining, strengthening and building up the progressive movement.

Politics is a strong and slow boring of hard boards.

---

by: Jenifer Fernandez Ancona @ Fri Jul 27, 2007 at 16:44:39 PM CDT

what is progressive movement foreign policy? (0.00 / 0)

Clinton also rejected preemption in her foreign policy speech to the Council on Foreign Relations:

In every era we wrestle with how to reconcile the pragmatic with the moral elements of our strength and what we choose to do with both. We got it right, mostly, during the Cold War, when realists and idealists together built the institutions and policies serving our interests and our values. We got it drastically wrong when a small group of ideologues decided we didnâ??t need those institutions or alliances or diplomacy or even the respect of other nations.

These principles would force a sea change from the current administrationâ??s policies. If you look at the dangerous situations we face today in Iraq, Afghanistan, Iran, North Korea, the proliferation of deadly weapons, the prosecution of the war on terror, you will see the same mistakes repeated over and over: the mistaken belief that alliances, international institutionsâ??all of that is irrelevant to American interests; the mistaken belief that diplomacy, even if backed by force, is synonymous with weakness; the mistaken belief that our militaryâ??s experience in war planning, our intelligence communityâ??s objective analysis, and our diplomatsâ?? experience in negotiations could be dismissed and replaced with ideological, wishful thinking; and in Iraq, the mistake of waging a preemptive war based on faulty intelligence, fanciful scenarios and bluster has turned out to be a one-time-only doctrine with no deterrent effect.

But rather than some set of hurdles each candidate should jump before being considered "progressive" I would like to know what progressive movement foreign policy is. What is the role, if any, of the UN and international institutions generally? When is it appropriate to use force, if ever? Is there a progressive take on recent military actions like the first Gulf war and Kosovo? How should we have intervene in places like Darfur or Rwanda, if at all? How is progressive movement foreign policy different from the progressive foreign policy laid down by FDR?

---

by: souvarine @ Fri Jul 27, 2007 at 17:10:09 PM CDT

Yup (0.00 / 0)

like I was saying, rejecting preemption, especially as a doctrine, is easy. It's much harder to take militarism by reducing the size of our miltary and our arsenal. Both Obama and Clinton want to add 92,000 troops to our military--the same number that Bush wants. Edwards is better on this issue, saying he'll wait and see what's needed, altough I wish he would more directly say we don't need a bigger military.

As for the larger question, mainstream progressives are going to have to start addressing the taboos of imperialism and Empire, even if such talk tends to spoil dinnertime conversation.

 

---

by: david mizner @ Fri Jul 27, 2007 at 17:41:32 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

The 92,000 (0.00 / 0)

is a number which, I believe, comes from the military.  We need to restore our National Guard to the role they are meant to serve.  Bush has created a backdoor draft which severely crippled our emergency response capability for natural disasters as well as terrorist strikes.  I heard on the radio just yesterday something about this, I believe, it was we only have one brigade in the country to protect us in case of an attack, terrorist or otherwise.  I believe one brigade is 3,500 soldiers.  I don't see how saying he'll wait and see is being better on this issue. 

---

by: DD2 @ Fri Jul 27, 2007 at 18:06:29 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

military posture, imperialism (0.00 / 0)

I doubt there is much daylight between the leading candidates on the question of how many soldiers we should have or how to maintain our nuclear arsenal. From a more liberal or left perspective one would argue for reducing both, but the DLC holds the upper hand in the Democratic party on this issue. I have no idea what the progressive movement position would be.

I don't think it is useful, at this point in history, to discuss these issues in terms of imperialism. World war and progressive institutions destroyed the empires in the last century and the neo-con's imperial visions are a fantasy. I think globalization and post-national issues are more important. But I'm curious what the imperial taboos are and how they intersect with progressivism.

---

by: souvarine @ Fri Jul 27, 2007 at 18:08:13 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

That you would ask (0.00 / 0)

Shows that you're struggling with what I understand the progressive movement to be.  It isn't a list of issue stances or particular positions, it's an inherently different way of engaging the world.  The policy positions won't always be the same, but the fundamental outlook on the nature of government, responsiveness, and the worth of legitimate responsibility.  Reasoned discussions with different conclusions can be found within that context, but because there's a fundamental understanding that government serves the people rather than manipulates the people leads to an inherently better society.

Quite frankly, and there are some who would find this blasphemous, I don't think that progressivism is necessarily tied to the Democratic Party forever.  At the moment, the Republicans are SO far from being able to embrace these sorts of fundamental shifts that they've disqualified themselves from consideration, but that is not an inherent trait for all-time...just the forseeable future.

John McCain opposes the GI Bill.

---

by: Lucas O'Connor @ Fri Jul 27, 2007 at 18:17:49 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

I need more help than that (0.00 / 0)

So far you sound like you are trying to explain a dot com business model. Changing Government to serve the people was the impetus for progressivism in the '30s, but it also had specific policy implications in building a post-imperial international system. For instance an international body representing each nation, the UN.

Chris says he will be examining how candidates comport themselves relative to the ideology of the progressive movement. One of those ideas appears to be no preemptive wars, unless we really need one. I would like to know what some of the other ideas are and how they are expressed in policy.

And BTW, Theodore Roosevelt, a Republican, was one of the founders of the progressive movement. So clearly 'Democratic' is not an inherent trait of progressivism.

---

by: souvarine @ Fri Jul 27, 2007 at 19:14:50 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Sure, there are policy implications (0.00 / 0)

But my point is simply that if we reduce progressivism to policy points without a focus on the how and why of arriving at those points, then the end is undermined by the means.  The overall platform of a progressive movement would take forever to really articulate and I'm not claiming that I could do it.

I guess what I'm getting at is that it has more to do with why you want to do something than simply wanting to do so.  For a good example, look at Senator Durbin's involvement with this current community on the subject of new neutrality.  He comes into it understanding that the goal is to make the internet as potent a tool for the general population as possible.  Yet he doesn't necessarily know the best way to go about it and is soliciting advice.  To me, that's how one comports themselves relative to the ideology of the progressive movement- open source "help me help you" dialogue instead of closed-door "help me bribe you" dialogue.  But is there a particular position or particular bill on net neutrality that serves as a litmus test or barometer? Probably not.

If you want a rule of thumb, I would personally say (at the risk of remaining frustratingly abstract) that what progressivism looks for is government policy that proactively seeks to accomodate self-determination.  You want to go to college? Covered. Want to see a doctor? Go for it. Want to speak your mind and have unfettered access to information? You got it.  While the natural inclination is to apply those domestically, I think ultimately the same principles apply to foreign policy as well.  Create as much infrastructure as possible to let people do what they can do.

John McCain opposes the GI Bill.

---

by: Lucas O'Connor @ Fri Jul 27, 2007 at 19:37:31 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

The Progressive Movement in the 21st Century (4.00 / 1)

The beauty of the emerging progressive movement in the 21st century is that it is being driven by fair-minded people who do not have to be centrally directed or organized. 

This is because the fair-minded values they share stem from common experiences and assessments of what needs to be corrected in the way our political, economic and social systems have been functioning.

The way I see the dialogs that Chris, Matt and Mike are initiating here at Open Left is that they are intended to give progressives the opportunity to apply their fair-mindedness to pivotal issues. The goal is to build consensus about what can and should be done to convert the coercive conservative systems that we have been forced to live under, where power is highly concentrated at the top, to lively progressive ones where the people are sovereign.

We are searching for progressive answers to the challenges we face, not orthodoxies, dogmas or ideological straight jackets. We are not trying to define people out of the movement but bring them into fair-minded debates about what can be done.

 

---

by: Nancy Bordier @ Sat Jul 28, 2007 at 11:40:39 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

Impressive (0.00 / 0)

What impresses me the most about Obama's opposition was not so much that he was simply against the invasion, but that he gave specifics as to why it would not be a sound policy.

Every thing he said turned out to be true. What is our long-term commitment there? How much does it cost to build Iraq?

He mentioned the future conflict between the Sunnis, Shiites, and Kurds before those terms entered the pundit vocabulary.

This is what really confuses me when people say: "Obama was against it from the start. Wow."

Not only was he against it, but he showed excellent judgment that was not popular at the time and that may predict a birght future.

---

by: blueprint @ Fri Jul 27, 2007 at 17:37:31 PM CDT

Doctrine vs. Evidence (0.00 / 0)

Now, for me, it's not simply a doctrinal issue. There wasn't any convincing evidence that Iraq had the ability to do any of the things that the administration was claiming it did, and that disparity in itself should have been enough to make anyone question the AUMF.

Take, for instance the claim that Iraq had drones that could attack the US. At the time, the US was just deploying its first operational test Predator drones in Afghanistan. The US had the ability to get the drones and their support equipment to the theater (they don't fly all that fast) as well as an incredibly well-developed aerospace industry. Iraq didn't have either the technology to build drones or the ability to get the planes into an attack position or the satellites to bounce control signals halfway around the world.

Nuclear weapons? There's a reason the original plutonium and uranium enrichment facilities in the US were located in Oak Ridge TN and Hanford WA: cheap, abundant hydropower from the TVA and Grand Coulee Dam, respectively. It takes a lot of electricity to refine nuclear weapons grade materials, even for a single bomb. And you can't hide the kind of facilities needed to produce that much power, whether it's oil, coal, or hydro-based, even if your nuke facility is in some bunker somewhere. The power lines would sort of give it away.

It's not as if you need to be some sort of science genius to know this stuff. It's in the history books. The USSR was able to hide its facilities in the old days because the US didn't have the kind of satellite imaging it does now. But in a country where the US controlled the airspace like Iraq? No way to hide power plants or massive amounts of electricity going anywhere.

A number of Democrats took that line. The majority of the Democrats on the Senate Intelligence committee in 2002 voted against the AUMF. A majority of the Democrats on the Senate Armed Forces committee in 2002 voted against the AUMF. Those two committees have as much access to classified military intelligence as anyone in Congress. But none of those senators are running for president.

Those who have had a chance for four years and could not produce peace should not be given another chance. --Richard Nixon, 9 October 1968

---

by: darrelplant @ Fri Jul 27, 2007 at 17:39:53 PM CDT

FYI (4.00 / 1)

A while back, someone asked me what position Obama took on preventive war, and I wrote a longish post trying to figure out the answer here.) Short version: there's a very explicit renunciation of it in The Audacity of Hope:

"I would also argue that we have the right to take unilateral military action to eliminate an imminent threat to our security -- so long as an imminent threat is understood to be a nation, group, or individual that is actively preparing to strike U.S. targets (or allies with which the United States has mutual defense agreements), and has or will have the means to do so in the immediate future. Al Qaeda qualifies under this standard, and we can and should carry out strikes against them wherever we can. Iraq under Saddam Hussein did not meet this standard, which is why our invasion was such a strategic blunder." (Emphasis in text.)

Best I can tell, he's saying in normal English that he supports genuinely preemptive, but not preventive, war.

---

by: hilzoy @ Fri Jul 27, 2007 at 17:54:42 PM CDT

Pre-emptive vs. Preventive (0.00 / 0)

This post is right on to clarify the distinction between preemptive and preventive war.  The former is, and has been, considered "legal" use of unilateral force by one country against another under just war theory and international law. Preemptive use of force is a part of  U.S. national security policy (I think rightfully so).  Preventive use of force is not condoned by international standards and the U.S. decision to set that precedent (whether our "leaders" call it what it is) is dangerous to our national security and to international security. 

As for whether progressive foreign policy should include preventive war, I will think on that some more and maybe post more later (with links to some information).

---

by: mtleig01 @ Fri Jul 27, 2007 at 18:53:45 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Pre-Emptive Strike (0.00 / 0)

There is a placee for pre-emptive strike and I think that all of the democratic candidates answered that question sanely except Kucinich and Gravel who I think believes that there should never be one.  I disagree that bad countries should never have any doubt that we will use our military might if necessary.  I also think that we need a strong military, but I also think that a lot of the big ticket items that the military buys is not needed.

I think the military should streamline to more modern weapon systems and get out of the business of supplying the rest of the world with WMDs.  Most of our smartest engineers work in DoD.  What do you think would happen if we had a lot of these engineers working on climate change, finding new technologies to conserve CO2?  JFK said that we were going to go to the moon and we as a nation worked toward that goal and accomplished it.  Just imagine if a president of the US decided that the goal of the US would be coming up with an alternative fuel that would decrease CO2 levels and conserve energy and that president put all our brightest engineers etc. on this issue instead of coming up with the next WMD, what do you think would happen?  Do you think the world would be better for this? 

---

by: todaynownottomorrow @ Sat Jul 28, 2007 at 11:08:13 AM CDT

Good point. (0.00 / 0)

And it's not just in this country where we can expand the military's vision toward climate change, we need to expand the scope of our security alliances to realize that also includes the environment.  In Obama's speech on Global Affairs he talks directly about this:

And as we strengthen NATO, we should also seek to build new alliances and relationships in other regions important to our interests in the 21st century. In Asia, the emergence of an economically vibrant, more politically active China offers new opportunities for prosperity and cooperation, but also poses new challenges for the United States and our partners in the region. It is time for the United States to take a more active role here - to build on our strong bilateral relations and informal arrangements like the Six Party talks. As President, I intend to forge a more effective regional framework in Asia that will promote stability, prosperity and help us confront common transnational threats such as tracking down terrorists and responding to global health problems like avian flu.

In this way, the security alliances and relationships we build in the 21st century will serve a broader purpose than preventing the invasion of one country by another. They can help us meet challenges that the world can only confront together, like the unprecedented threat of global climate change.

This is a crisis that cannot be contained to one corner of the globe. Studies show that with each degree of warming, rice yields - the world's most significant crop - fall by 10%. By 2050 famine could displace more than 250 million people worldwide. That means people competing for food and water in the next fifty years in the very places that have known horrific violence in the last fifty: Africa, the Middle East, South Asia.

As the world's largest producers of greenhouse gases, America has the greatest responsibility to lead here. We must enact a cap and trade system that will dramatically reduce our carbon emissions. And we must finally free ourselves from our dependence on foreign oil by raising our fuel standards and harnessing the power of biofuels.

Such steps are not just environmental priorities, they are critical to our security. America must take decisive action in order to more plausibly demand the same effort from others. We should push for binding and enforceable commitments to reduce emissions by the nations which pollute the most - the United States, the European Union, Russia, China, and India together account for nearly two-thirds of current emissions. And we should help ensure that growth in developing countries is fueled by low-carbon energy - the market for which could grow to $500 billion by 2050 and spur the next wave of American entrepreneurship.

---

by: DD2 @ Sat Jul 28, 2007 at 11:34:51 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

just for the record (0.00 / 0)

Chris writes: "Demonstrating a pattern of sound, progressive foreign policy judgment goes beyond the authorization for the use of military force vote, and very much requires an open rejection of the neoconservative doctrine of pre-emptive invasion."
Just for the record, Kucinich did both way back in 2003, as well as publicly criticizing PNAC, challenging Lieberman's depiction of Iraq as a "just war", and (still) fighting against the privatization of Iraq's oil.  Plus he called for all troops out back in 2003, and put a plan forward in the fall of that year.
I write this not to flame any of the other candidates, and certainly not Chris, who writes one of the most thoughtful blogs around; I write it because the Kucinich record on Iraq is worthy of respect. (Note:  I was on the Kucinich campaign in 2003, and support him this time.)

---

by: cobblestones @ Sun Jul 29, 2007 at 10:33:38 AM CDT