Divides

Kevin Drum was making the argument the other day that Democrats aren't really divided about national security issues. There's something to what he's saying, but I also think it's problematic in a variety of ways. I guess I'll try to do an opus on this subject at some point, but for now let me just note something minor, an LA Times op-ed by Nancy Soderberg, a Democratic Party foreign policy practitioner in good standing -- the number three official on the NSC in the first Clinton administration and the number two member of our UN delegation during his second administration -- the sort of person who'll very plausibly have an important job in the next Democratic administration.

The subject of the op-ed is that Hugo Chavez of Venezuela and Nestor Kirchner of Argentina are forming an aliance to create a regional alternative to the International Monetary Fund and also that, back in January 2005, Argentina used its power as a sovereign state to essentially default on some debt it had incurred. Soderberg thinks this is bad. Very bad. So bad that she breaks out the classic Americanism that "Democracy is at risk in Latin America." As Robert Farley says "Argentina's position on loan repayment has absolutely nothing to do with its status as a democracy." Chavez really is an anti-democratic leader in many respects, but obviously the United States of America -- like all countries -- makes diplomatic agreements with non-democracies on a regular basis.

One could go on, but the basic shape is clear. America needs to use its power in the region in order to maintain its power in the region and occassional deploy that power on behalf of international lenders and we need to engage in a lot of bogus rhetoric about how what we're really doing is standing up for democracy. And this is, as I started off saying, a Democrat's position. Now does that mean "Democrats are deeply divided over Argentina?" Of course. Most people never think about Argentina and don't have opinions one way or the other. But the difference in underlying attitudes is very clear. A lot of Democrats are peddling what you might call neoconservatism with a human face, or promising us a smarter, more effective imperialism rather than putting forward genuine alternatives to current policies.

9/7/06 9:11AM del.icio.us this incoming links

Comments

Your friend Justin Logan puts it pretty well. Democratic voters have had enough of liberal imperialism and starting a new war every couple years. Democratic leaders just think they could do it better.

Posted by: Pithlord on September 7, 2006 09:58 AM

Great post.

I would say that Drum's partially right in regard to the midterms. All the Democrats need to agree on at hte midterms is Iraq - bad, War on Terror - separate from Iraq, other prospective invasions - lunatic crazy bad. That's new, compared to '04, and it is a valuable concensus for these elections.

What Matt points out, though, is that it's pretty easy to support the 2006 Democratic line from a neo-imperialist base. The problems in articulating a Democratic consensus probably arise because the party doesn't agree on exactly how imperialistic the rhetoric and logic of hte consensus ought to be.

Posted by: DivGuy on September 7, 2006 10:10 AM

I become increasingly perplexed by Matthew's preferred foriegn policy. Maybe his book will sort it all out, but his posts are baffling to me.

I thought he said that he preferred a new liberal internationalism. Maybe I misconceive the idea of "liberal internationalism", but I thought it was something about promoting international institutions to which all countries submit, even if those institutions may go against a particular country's interest in a particular case. Am I wrong about that? If not, then why does Matthew seem to be opposing an op-ed that seems to be siding with an international institution (the IMF)? Is Matthew really on the side of a country that flauts an international institution in favor of that country's unilateral interests? That seems to be precisely the opposite of liberal internationalism. And if Matthew prefers Argentina's unilateralism to the IMF's multilateralism, why would he ever oppose the USA's unilateralism in favor of the UN or some other multilateral institution?

As I say, I don't get it.

Posted by: Al on September 7, 2006 10:15 AM

Maybe not so minor. This all relates, for me, to Clintonism, the DLC, and a frightened, weak Democratic establishment tied to the same corporate interests that the Republicans are, resulting in a divided message that while pushing populism on the one hand, really supports its opposite on the other. This muddled thinking is what helped engender electoral defeats over the years as voters do not, as you note, resonate with this approach. The result is voter apathy where there should be voter energy.

Perhaps this is another reason why the Democratic establishment, and Clinton himself, were (and may remain) so antipathetic to both the Dean run for the DNC chairmanship, the netroots and the Lamont candidacy. Now that they've tasted defeat, even on a limited scale, will they change their outlooks, or only their rhetoric?

Posted by: Morris Sheppard on September 7, 2006 10:27 AM

AI, Argentina is not flauting the IMF. They repaid all of its loans to the IMF at once a few months ago (just so they wouldn't have to listen to them anymore). And the only authority the IMF has derives of those loans. They don't really have any power or authority unless you owe them money, so Argentina didn't really broke any rules regarding the IMF. The IMF isn't really anything like the UN, but essentially a bank, a lender of last resort. And it's not like Argentina was the only country with problems with the IMF. Concerning the debt payments, I agree that countries should pay their debts, but the reality is that Argentina didn't really had any choice; it was blood on the streets and looting (at one point, in late 2001 and early 2002, people were attacking supermarkets and hunting cats for food, for example) or refusing to pay and you can guess what any democratic government would choose. And could everybody please stop freaking out about Chavez? I know you don't like him, but criticizing a guy who won fairly the last election for being antidemocratic when you supported a military coup to overthrow him sounds really silly to everybody outside USA.

Posted by: Carlos on September 7, 2006 11:09 AM

How, precisely, is Hugo Chavez an "anti-democratic leader"? He was fairly elected twice, he has offered to step down midterm if his people enact a vote of no confidence, and he supports the UN. America should be so lucky as to have a leader with such "anti-democratric" principles.

Posted by: Notorious P.A.T. on September 7, 2006 11:13 AM

Al: maybe you misconceive the idea of "liberal internationalism." It's been awhile since I ran into anyone, liberal, conservative, or centrist, who was pushing the idea of a world government.

And while liberals are generally for having some effective international institutions, that doesn't mean that liberals are happy with the aims or practices of all the international institutions that currently exist, and it also doesn't mean that liberals are expecting nations to 'submit' to the institutions they like.

Now if a nation enters into an international treaty, that's different - that's giving one's word, and adhering to the treaty is the keeping of one's word. With the usual consequences in terms of loss of credibility (and in some fairly rare situations, international sanctions) for failure to do so.

Argentina defaulted on some debt. The consequence is lack of credibility, or rather credit: it'll have a much harder time borrowing money for a good while. End of story.

Any questions?

Posted by: RT on September 7, 2006 11:39 AM

A lot of Democrats are peddling what you might call neoconservatism with a human face, or promising us a smarter, more effective imperialism rather than putting forward genuine alternatives to current policies.

I don't see anything particularly neoconservative in Soderberg's comments. They represent good old-fashioned, mainstream, bipartisan US imperialism and colonialism, particularly where Latin America is concerned, and a continuation of the neoliberalism of the Washington Consensus vigorously pushed during the Clinton administration.

Posted by: Dan Kervick on September 7, 2006 12:00 PM

One gets the impression the real difference between the parties is Democrats are pro-choice investment bankers and Republicans are pro-life investment bankers.

You think back to what was once government policy, Kennedy's Alliance For Progress (at one time, the US government endorsed land reform-- one of the evil things Chavez is guilty of) and Carter's human rights agenda and you realize the Democrats today look moderate only in comparison to the Bushbots.

Posted by: beowulf on September 7, 2006 12:18 PM

I would just like to echo the call to explain what exactly is "anti-democratic" about Chavez? Was it the several election he won or the military coup he managed to turn away or is it his tendency to get a major of votes to support him? Calling Chavez "anti-democratic" makes no sense to me, and it is definitely something one should actually unpack/explain instead of just throwing out there. I heard another poltical observer talking about the far left, meaning Mao, Stalin, and Chavez. What did Chavez do to see like such a monster, seriously?!

Posted by: bwunderlick on September 7, 2006 01:42 PM

This post is yet another promising sign that Matt's book won't be a repeat of Beinart. Neoconservatism with a human face is exactly the right tag to be using on the Democratic foreign policy establishment.

Posted by: MQ on September 7, 2006 01:52 PM

What did Chavez do to see like such a monster, seriously?!

he refused to privatize the oil industry. that's all.

why is morales such a "threat"? why couldn't the democratically elected mossadegh be allowed to rule iran? same answer.

Posted by: benjoya on September 7, 2006 02:59 PM

except in morales's case, it's natural gas, not oil, and not privatization per se, but a new contract with foreign companies more favorable to Bolivia. you get the point.

Posted by: benjoya on September 7, 2006 03:01 PM

I've noticed in comment thread after comment thread, Al will berate Democrats & Liberals for failing to be the straw men that Rush told him about. It's quite fascinating.

Posted by: MDtoMN on September 7, 2006 04:25 PM

I think Matt pretty much put his finger on "liberal internationalism"- policies that promote US power and protect international investers, with a lot of bogus rhetoric about how what we're really doing is standing up for democracy.

In reality, of course, the leader who lost an unsupervised election and then stole it with court justices his father appointed, is accusing the leader who won an election, certified as fair and honest by international observers, of being "anti-democratic".

And this, basically, is why I think writing a book rebuilding "liberal interventionism" to save the Democratic Party is a losing proposition. I think the jig is up.

Our big dominance in South America after WW II was built on 'who else are you gonna sell to?' Well, here's a newsflash- now they have somebody else to sell to- China, which somehow escapes the ritual "anti-democratic thug" label everytime we look at their products in our hardware stores or supermarkets.

Forget exporting bogus rhetoric about democracy, and start thinking about how we might import some real democracy to save our own butts when the skillet heats up. 'Cause it's already feeling might warm around here.

Posted by: serial catowner on September 7, 2006 06:18 PM

Carlos writes: AI, Argentina is not flauting the IMF. They repaid all of its loans to the IMF at once a few months ago (just so they wouldn't have to listen to them anymore). And the only authority the IMF has derives of those loans. They don't really have any power or authority unless you owe them money, so Argentina didn't really broke any rules regarding the IMF. The IMF isn't really anything like the UN, but essentially a bank, a lender of last resort. And it's not like Argentina was the only country with problems with the IMF. Concerning the debt payments, I agree that countries should pay their debts, but the reality is that Argentina didn't really had any choice; it was blood on the streets and looting (at one point, in late 2001 and early 2002, people were attacking supermarkets and hunting cats for food, for example) or refusing to pay and you can guess what any democratic government would choose.

You are absolutely right. Argentina eventually did pay off the IMF (after several previous renegotiations). It was the private bonds that Argentina defaulted on, to the tune of $93 billion (still, I believe, the largest default in history). I think that creditors ended up getting $.25 on the dollar.

As an aside, I'm fully aware of how the debt crisis affected Argentina, having travelled there several times since 2002. Indeed, I have some very interesting pictures of the mobs did to the banks and other institutions on Avenida Florida...

Nonetheless, Argentina did defy the IMF quite often during the crisis. I would have thought Matthew would be on the side of the international institutions, rather than on the side of the country's unilateral actions (even where those unilateral actions make sense for that country - as they did for Argentina). But that's all part of my confusion as to Matthew' overall position. Is it simply that Matthew is just an old fashioned isolationist???

Posted by: Al on September 7, 2006 07:20 PM

I don't understand why people keep on saying that Chavez is "democratic" because he won an election.

Do people not understand that elections =/= democracy?

Posted by: Al on September 7, 2006 07:21 PM

Thank you for reminding me not to waste my votes on establishment Democrats.

Posted by: Murph on September 7, 2006 08:10 PM

Al: "Matthew prefers Argentina's unilateralism to the IMF's multilateralism . . ."

IMF multilateralism??? That's the funniest phrase I've heard in weeks. I'm sure the boys at Treasury would be amused, too.

By multilateralism, Al apparently means the sacred duty of the international community to bail out the major Wall Street investment banks -- who flushed their clients money down the toilet by investing in Argentine debt despite a clearly rigged and highly unstable exchange rate system, developed by economic advisors on the payroll of those same Wall Street investment banks.

If that's multilateralism, then the Argentines say "fuck multilateralism," and I can only second them.

Posted by: billmon on September 7, 2006 08:46 PM

The IMF not a multilateral institution? Isn't the head of the IMF a European?

Anyway, it'll surprise you to know that I agree completely with your attitude toward multilateralism, which seems quite Bushian. That is, you are perfectly happy with multilateral institutions so long as they are working toward your preferred policy goals. But if the multilateral institutions are not working toward your policy goals, then "fuck multilateralism".

Posted by: Al on September 7, 2006 11:25 PM

"I would just like to echo the call to explain what exactly is "anti-democratic" about Chavez?"

start here. http://hrw.org/doc/?t=americas&c=venezu
then go from there.

Posted by: chris on September 8, 2006 10:25 AM

I would say that your link to hrw as proof of Chavez's "undemocratic" rule is dubious at best. All those charges sound exactly like what is happening here in our country under the worst president in the history of the United States, Bush.

EXCEPT, Chavez doesn't start illegal, unnecessary wars based on lies and aggression in order to get votes. I would say Bush is MUCH worse than Chavez, given the amount of deaths he is directly responsible for.

And, SHAME ON YOU, MattY, for supporting this illegal war that will not only bankrupt our country and our military, but has destroyed our reputation throughout the world, has destabilized the entire Middle East, and has done nothing but make our security situation here at home even worse.

All of the torture, rapes and murder that have sprung from your little well of hatred-called-war-hardon are YOUR FAULT. The blood, the rapes, all of it - YOUR FAULT.

If you support this terrible travesty, JOIN THE ARMY, or STFU.

Posted by: Shorter Rightwing Arseholes on September 8, 2006 03:29 PM

I'm not saying elections automatically equal democracy, I'm saying that THROUGH winning FOUR elections that included REAL opposition, some by LARGE margins, Chavez is obviously the repeated choice of a MAJORITY of the citizens. That's way more than Bush can say, but to call him anti-democratic would be "crazy"...

I agree with benjoya, it seems anti-democratic = not siding with international capital against the interests and rights of the citizens you represent.

Posted by: bwunderlick on September 8, 2006 03:42 PM

Matt, as a refugee from Communism and one well versed in the frame of mind of Communist "activists," I am confident that America was not on an imperial journey through the Cold War.

But something has happened to America that only those familiar with the people talked about in Michelle Goldberg's recent book KINGDOM COME can appreciate. I learned that "Evangelicals" are some 40% of the voters. They adbicated their responsibility to STRUGLE in order to understand the complex universe we live in (calculus kills most americans and they run from it like rats from fire) and they abrogated the rights of others to THINK. To them it is all TEXTUALLY-- not contextually-- in the Bible. Thery want back the "JESUS AMERICA of their illusions. As a devout Christian who survived the Cold War through faith, I learned the absolute necessity of live and let live. But these people have come to see America as the centure of their RAPTURE and the rest of the world as their HEATHEN CHALLENGE.

What is freightening is that this crusade is run by criminals and irresponsible manipulators of image as Pretorian Guards of popular superficialirty and simplicity. All have skummy pasts, yet, for them, history and biography starts with the current date of their SALVATION when they were SAVED BY JESUS.

Now Jesus is twice cricified by these fraudulent larcenists. And their ambitions are limitless.

Wow be the ex-commie Neocons who thought themselves so bright as to make an alliance, so they thought, between themselves as GOD'S CHOSEN PEOPLE and the CALVINIST FASCISTS who see Israel as an indicant of how close is the Day of Rapture.

Political power for these freaks is only a MEANS, not their end. The latter is an America where only the "believers" live and the rest must go to countries still under "cultivation" en route to SALVATION.

History is replete with where this goes. First and foremost, any loss of power politically in the Fall 2006 elections will unleash their "it's the Jews' fault" campaign. Already they note how their Neocon "allies" worked to keep America secular. It will not be hard for them to mentally switch the image of the neocons from "God's chosen people" to "commie infiltrators serving the Devil in the Kingdom of Christ on Earth, America."

We are in a war of discivilizations as the two fundamentalisms led by frauds and criminal-- even homicidal-- maniacs assert their reductum ad absurdum power. Who said evolution could not move backwards making an ape from a human? That 63% of Americans believe that the world came into being in less that 6,000 years shows that the devolution is well on the way. Pray brother that Jesus may truly come to save us from these false prophets who turned the multicomposit Bible into a political cookbook.

Posted by: DE Teodoru on September 22, 2006 01:58 PM

thanks four you flowers

Posted by: çiçek siparişi on September 29, 2007 10:54 AM

thanks four you flowers

Posted by: sohbet on October 8, 2007 11:14 PM

thank you

Posted by: Sohbet on October 29, 2007 07:11 AM

Thanks very nice

Posted by: Hosting on October 29, 2007 07:20 AM

Thanks very nice

Posted by: Hosting on October 29, 2007 07:56 AM

mIRC mırc mırç mirç