DEMS & FOREIGN POLICY: STILL IN DENIAL

Continuing down the road of partisan denial, TAPped advocates Dems look to Clinton as a model for their foreign policy.

But the highly underrated foreign policy that the Clinton Administration had constructed -- somewhat by accident -- by the end of Clinton's second term is the proper basis for a credible Democratic foreign policy: Unafraid to export democratic values; careful but not timid about the use of force abroad; sensible about military spending; pro-nation-building in the best post-WWII sense; and willing to work through international institutions where feasible.

Its not that TAPped is advocating bad foreign policy principles - simply that it takes a severely selective memory of the Clinton Administration to claim that such policies were ever consistently pursued. Heres the gap between the idealized Clinton foreign policy of TAP and the actual results.

1) Exporting Democatic Values. To where, exactly? Not to China, where trade policy trumped all, certaintly not to the Middle East, where we turned a blind eye to the internal affairs of our "allies" and pushed forwards a peace process creating a Palestinian dictatorship. Not to South Asia either, where we shrugged our shoulders at the collapse of Pakistani democracy. The Clinton Adminstration's was far more concerned about exporting American products than American values.

2) Use of Military Force. Kosovo was handled well - in fact it's a good model. Otherwise, the Clintonians blinked at critical moments when military force was required - Bosnia, Iraq, and the famously lobbed cruise missile into Afghanistan.

3) Nation-Building. Clinton talked the talk, but he sure didn't walk the walk. The fact is that we didn't nation-build in the "best post-WWII sense" at all during the Clinton years. I hate to go to the Oslo well again, but its exhibit A for the Clinton team's support of "process" and photo-ops over substantive political development.

4) International Institutions. It's good that the Clinton Admnistration worked through international institutions where feasible. This was most apparent in its greatest foreign policy success - effective management of the global economy. Unfortunately, the Clintonians also tried to work through international institutions where it was infeasible. Quite simply, the professional diplomats who dominate international institutions are risk-adverse and status quo oriented. This means that they will underpriortize democratization, and shy away from the use of military force. Failure to recognize when these problems require the U.S. to circumvent these institutions and take decisive, unilateral U.S. action remains the Dems most patent weakness on foreign affairs

In no certain terms should the Dems give Bush a blank check on foreign policy. But they'd be much better served looking to Joe Lieberman rather than Bill Clinton for an appropriate opposing vision.