A must-read column on neoliberalism, American exceptionalism, and the primaries

[I hate liars]

Patrick L. Smith has penned a very thought-provoking column in Salon on American foreign policy and Hillary's FP perspective and role. This opinion piece would be notable even if we weren't in the midst of a presidential primary, but it's especially relevant in that light.

The author's thesis is that the religion of American exceptionalism and absence of an assertive alternative to the neoliberal FP agenda (as opposed to Obama's "Don't do stupid stuff&quot are responsible for not only the adventurism we've seen since 2001 (and arguably before that) but also the authoritarianism and deteriorating economic and political conditions we see domestically.

As the author puts it, "We have a choice now between empire abroad and democracy at home."

American foreign policy has not worked for a very long time. The magnitude of its failures grows larger as we speak.

The compelling reality here—and it is pressing that Americans face it—is that we will get nowhere in restoring ourselves to an orderly world until we accept these failures. Nobody ever advances in any context without first taking a clear-eyed look at where one stands and how one got there. In other words, subsisting on silliness such as “peace, progress and prosperity” is a serious impediment to all three.

...foreign policy has always been the business of sequestered cliques and this is as it should be. In my estimation, Obama’s “Don’t do stupid stuff,” while recessive rather than assertive, is vastly better as an organizing principle. At the very least it is a sound start toward one, given the paradox before us: So much of what we must do in the cause of constructive policies abroad rests upon all that we must stop doing.

With this deconstruction of a casual observation, we can begin our list of what right-thinking people ought to seek in an alternative to our standing foreign policies. We want an organizing principle, certainly, but we want one that is humane, defensible and clearly stated. We want honest language, devoid of obfuscation and scout-troop platitudes. And we want a policy process that is subject to what remains of our political process. All of these would breach tradition, and that is precisely what we want above all.

My intention with this post is not to denigrate Hillary, but to draw attention to a serious policy debate that affects all of us. It's hard to argue persuasively that our foreign policy since 2001 has produced positive results. So the obvious questions are "Why?" and "What should we do differently?" The fact that we're in a heated primary makes this conversation uncomfortable, but no less important.

Hillary supporters will not like the article's title and no doubt will take exception to some of the author's conclusions. But the author cites concrete examples to support his case, including the coup in Ukraine, regime-change conflicts in Libya and Syria, and "free" trade treaties like the TPP.

[link:http://www.salon.com/2016/03/20/it_is_urgent_that_shes_stopped_hillary_clintons_nightmare_neoliberalism_and_american_exceptionalism_makes_the_world_a_dangerous_place/

[whatchamacallit]

1. I thought our foreign policy was clearly stated

Kick Thier Ass and Take Their Gas.

[brush]

2. We keep hearing about Clinton's foreign policy. She worked for the president. It was his foreign

policy that she was implementing, which is the job of the SOS.

[djean111]

3. Then, her experience as SOS only counts for frequent flier miles and fluent blackberry texting.

And dodging non-existent Bosnian sniper fire, of course.

And I seem to remember some sort of email revelation wherein someone congratulated Hillary for turning around Obama on something or another.

[I hate liars]

5. From the same author's column last week:

There was her extravagant claim to all credit immediately after the Qaddafi regime was “changed”—to chaos and bloodshed, of course. Jake Sullivan, Clinton’s policy adviser, wrote of the secretary’s “leadership/ownership/stewardship of this country’s Libya policy from start to finish.”

Then there is the belly-crawl back as things “went south,” as Clinton’s people put it. When she appeared before a House committee to defend her record on Libya last autumn, Clinton had the nerve to assert, “At the end of the day, this was the president’s decision.”

The fires had not gone out in Libyan cities before Clinton was urging a similarly aggressive intervention into Syria. This was 2012. In recounting this shift in interest the Times correspondents observe, “The lessons of the Libya experience have not tempered her more aggressive approach to international crises.”

Now we come to the true subject of these well-crafted pieces. It is not at bottom Secretary of State Clinton’s recklessness in Libya. It is the redemption of Candidate Clinton, whom the Times endorses, as criticism of her record at State mounts. Yes, yes, a person of many faults. But we must understand: Things could not be helped. She tried. She was “boxed in.” It was not all her fault.

[link:http://www.salon.com/2016/03/13/as_reckless_as_george_w_bush_hillary_clinton_helped_create_disorder_in_iraq_libya_syria_and_scarier_doesnt_seem_to_understand_how/|

[Duval]

4. Important OP.

And well worth reading. So many seem to forget and this is a gentle reminder.