Truman Democrats to the Rescue

I have been caught up in the excitement of the new Talking Points Memo Cafe, and have therefore have been spending my limited blog-time "commenting." One of the many interesting discussions I found there involved the newly-formed Truman Democrats. whose mission is to develop a credible Democratic national security alternative to the GOP.


Michael Signer, a Principal of the Project, outlined six principles of Truman Democrats in a recent post on Democracy Arsenal.

At least six values grounded our discussion, and showed how Truman Democrats improve on both the left and the right. Our first three values share some similarity to principles currently claimed by neoconservatives:

1) American exceptionalism: Like the neoconservatives, we believe that America is the greatest country the world has known. We are historically, morally, and intellectually unique. Unlike the necons, however, we believe we must constantly earn our exceptionalism through our moral conduct. Our uniqueness stems from our values, and so we bear a unique responsibility for living up to those values in shaping and influencing the world.

2) The use of force: Like the neocons, we're comfortable with the use of force for morally good ends. Unlike the neocons, as a general matter, we believe force shouldn't be the default choice for achieving our ends. We're neither reflexive doves nor pacifists; rather, we're pragmatists on the use of force.

3) American hegemony: Like the neocons, we want America to retain its supremacy as the military, political , and economic leader of the world in order that we can maintain our own security, help strengthen the world's safety and stability, and accomplish morally right goals. We are and should be a unipolar power. Unlike the neocons, however, we believe we must constantly earn and affirm the right to exercise that power.

But Truman Democrats also add three new principles of their own:

1) The world community. The traditionally conservative (rather than neocon, but still threaded through the current Administration's foreign policy) viewpoint borrows heavily from libertarian principles. As a matter of right and obligation, conservatives often believe people are and should be fundamentally selfish and individualistic, and that collective action is wrong. Truman Democrats believe, on the other hand, that the world is a community. America can lead that community -- but, to paraphrase John Donne, we are not an island, and any death diminishes us, because we are involved in mankind. To switch to a more prosaic metaphor, America is like a quarterback for the world. Although he's the most critical member of the team, the quarterback can't win alone; he needs the confidence and loyalty of his teammates, which he earns through leadership.

2) Liberal-mindedness: Neoconservatives believe that the discovery of ideas is basically finished. That's why they constantly return to the ancient theorists and ancient values in search of some lost nobility and greatness. Truman Democrats believe instead that knowledge is constantly expanding, and that to conclude that we have finished knowing, or that ideas are presumptively wrong because of where they come from, is both arrogant and dangerous. We believe in a resilient, flexible national mind, avoiding the calcification of ideology. We believe in learning from events and fitting our thinking to facts, not the other way around. This is why democracy (which encourages the growth of knowledge) is our political system of choice.

3) Helping the least well-off: Conservatives and realpolitikers have generally believed that wealth and power should be the key determinants to foreign policy decisions regarding other countries. Following philosophers like John Rawls, Truman Democrats believe we should instead help the least well-off before we help the most well-off. So building up the economies in many developing nations, or addressing the AIDS crisis, is not only a matter of stability -- it's a matter of moral right. Moreover, helping the least well-off also helps us. Being the only wealthy house in a poor neighborhood makes us the target. Helping the whole neighborhood become richer makes us a leader.

The following is my commentary on Signer's points, which I posted atTPM Cafe :

While I share the aims of the Truman Democrats, I think that the 6 points listed are inartfully drafted.

Truman Democrats share the following values with the neocons:

1) The central goal of American foreign policy should be the promotion of liberal (individual rights, rule of law) and democratic values. These should not be subordinated to the competing values of stability or material interests.

2) America has been and will continue to be the indispensible nation for the furthering of liberal and democratic values. America (for the most part has not) and should not seek to use its power solely in a narrow national self-interest like past great powers. [What Signer calls "Exceptionalism"]

3) America should use its political, economic and military supremacy to promote liberal and democratic values [What Signer calls "Use of Force"]

4) Because America is uniquely committed to the promotion of liberal and democratic values, it is essential for it to maintain its
military, political and economic supremacy. [What the Signer calls "Hegemony"]

Truman Democrats are distinguishable from neocons in the following ways:

1) Committment to the expansion of a liberal international order outside of the economic sphere. America needs to work with its liberal, democratic allies to create functional institutions to combat global security and environmental problems. [What Signer calls "global community.]

2) The values of social justice and "soft" power. America must show moral leadership by assiting the world's most vulnerable. Such leadership is just as powerful as military, political or economic leadership. [This is what Signer calls "helping those least well-off"]

3) Pragmatism and Professionalism. American foreign policy must use pragmatic means in achieving idealistic ends. There are realistic limits to the capacity of America to change the world overnight, and the correct ideological position cannot substitute for technical and professional expertise and fully thought out plans. [corresponds to Signers "liberal-mindedness."]

It should be very clear that the Bush Administration, both its neocon and Jacksonian camps, do not support the last three values. Truman Democrats therefore would present an idealist, muscular foreign policy that is anything but neocon-lite, but instead truly promotes America's national interests by adhereing to America's core values.

Note: I found it interesting that when I came across the articulation of Truman Democrat values on their site, that it was closer to what I had articulated.


The Truman Democrats list the following 8 core values:

1. Promoting democracy and freedom protects American national security.
   
   
2. Protecting American national security requires us to promote consistently our deepest values of freedom and liberty – with actions as well as words.
   
   
3. Robust military and intelligence capabilities protect American national security.
   
   
4. Strong alliances protect American national security.
   
   
5. Legitimate international behavior protects American national security.
   
6. Free trade protects American national security.
   
   
7. Promoting development abroad protects American national security.
   
   
8. Comprehensive policy coordination protects American national security.
   
   

It should be even more clear from this articulation that Truman Democrats are not neo-con lite but rather offer a clear Wilsonian alternative to the radical unilateralist idealism of the neocons, the Jeffersonian neo-isolationism of the pacifist grass-roots left, and the competing visions of Hamiltonian realism and utopianist globralism of the foreign policy establishment.

Climate Change Policy Brought to you by Big Oil

It has pretty much been a given that the Bush administration's policy on climate change (or more accurately, lack thereof) would be driven by Big Oil. We now have evidence that it is in fact literally written by Big Oil. The New York Times reveals that Phil Cooney, a shill for the American Petroleum Institute significantly edited the scientific reports on climate research in order to de-link the accepted conclusion linking human emissions of greenhouse gases to global climate change.

As a result of our government's inaction the insane Great Global Chemistry Experiment goes forward. You'd think anyone except somebody making an obscene amount of money out of the status quo would be a bit uncomfortable living in the testtube. Then again, those people are precisely the ones making our nation's policy on this issue. At the rate the Bush Administration and the GOP Congress is selling out the country, they might as well rename Pennsylvania Avenue "K Street" - after all its not like there's any difference between what's happening inside the offices lining either street.

Governors for Jesus, against Jews

The front cover of today's Times has an article on yesterday's signing of anti-abortion and anti-gay legislation by Texas governor Rick Perry at an evangelical school in Fort Worth, Texas. While the entire scene - the need to "celebrate with Christian friends" over the signing of legislation whose secular purpose seems dubious to begin - was distubring, of particular note is Perry's decision to have "Rabbi" David Stone, minister of the Beth Yeshua Messianic Jewish Congregation of Fort Worth offer the closing benediction among protestations by the Perry camp that the event was "open to people of all faiths."


The local Messianic Jewish congregation is part of an initiative is often known by its best-funded and most visible organization, "Jews for Jesus," one of the leading pioneers in the succesful exploitation of the Comic Sans Font to produce whimsical-looking pamphlets. Whatever the differences between the varying forms of Messianic Judaism, they have two things in common: One, a desire to succeed where crudades, inquisitions and dis-enfranchisement failed and convert the stubborn Jews; and two, a lack of faith in the ability of a straight-forward presentation of the merits of Christianity in getting the job done. Thus "Messianic Jewish" congregations retain the ritual trappings of Judaism (down to a Hebraicized Bet Yeshua/House of Jesus) but in fact espouse the Christian doctrine of salvation through Jesus Christ.


While many of my co-religionists are deeply troubled by any evangelizing of Jews (believing understandably that given the general way its been done in the past 2000 years, we deserve a milenium or so break from prostelyzation), part of being in America is for everyone to be exposed to the marketplace of competing religious ideas. Further, I understand the central role witnessing plays in the religious lives of evangelicals - they believe they have a divine obligation to spread what they believe to be the "Good News." Such witnessing provides no threat to any truly secure Jewish identity - there is no reason to slam the door on a Jehovah's Witness or Mormon who doesn't get the hint that mezuzah on the doorpost is a signal to pitch their spiritual wares next door.


Jews for Jesus and its ilk is another story. Support for Jews for Jesus is fundamentally inconsistent with respect for Judaism and evangelicals should be ashamed of their support for it. To have the chief executive of one of the most important states in our union endorse such degredation of the Jewish faith is unacceptable. Governer Perry needs to get the message loud and clear that he has deeply offended the American Jewish community and he accordingly not deserving of any support, even from the minority of Texas Jews who do vote Republican. Further, the GOP needs to get the message that there is a limit to what even hawkish, Israel-centered Jews will put up with when it comes to pandering to the religious right. And that Governor Perry, by endorsing a movement created for the sole purpose of readicating the Jewish faith, has just crossed that line.