Biden and an 'internationalist' democratic foreign policy-New Yorker

[fiorello]

This is a long, 'serious' article. In brief: it says that the Democrats should find a voice on foreign policy that emphasizes fighting terrorism through positive action in the world - nation-building, support for genuine democracy, foreign aid. Opposing Bush-style mindless militarism, but not strictly antiwar either. It cites Clark specifically (re. his Kosovo experience), also refers to Kerry and Edwards.

This is a critical issue for Democrats. The alternatives are either a strict antiwar position or lets-fix-problems-at-home-first. Both antiwar and fix-home-first have validity, and I am suspicious of US government activity in foreign countries (who isn't?) - but I've been convinced.

Full article: http://www.newyorker.com/fact/content/?040216fa_fact1.

Also in the same issue: Kerry's military record vs Bush's (and Clark's role in 'outing' Bush): http://www.newyorker.com/talk/content/?040216ta_talk_hertzberg

And Cheney and Haliburton (already posted):
http://www.newyorker.com/fact/content/?040216fa_fact

[blm]

1. That's the progressive internationalism that Kerry has spoken of for 2yrs.

now.

The world is at a real crossroads in this election. Kerry's win in November will change the world.

[auntpattywatty]

2. I would have voted for Biden if he ran for Prez

[Desperadoe]

4. Biden for President?

I wouldn't vote for Biden for Dogcatcher. Biden is a Dino cut from the same cloth as his buddy Tweety.

[salin]

8. not me - very recently he was still proclaiming going into Iraq was

the right thing to do... just a tad shy of going as far as Evan Bayh who said, in response to Kay's public statements that there are no WMDs and probably have not been for years, Evan stands by his belief that the WMDs will be found in Iraq.

I once had a great deal of respect for Sen. Biden. He was my choice in 1988 after Hart had to bow out. Now I find he does a bit of the double talking. I find it hard to take him seriously.

[cosmicdot]

3. does it address corporate power within its framework, this foreign policy

is it similar to, say, Dennis Kucinich's approach to foreign policy?

the Bush-Cheney way is pretty obvious since most people have heard of Halliburton ... we have a good idea how Bush-Cheney spend our tax dollars, and who profits

foreign aid is fine, except I would like to see greater accounting of where that money goes, and how is spent ... down to the penny ...

I often wonder about all the money this country has shared with other countries over the last 40 years; and, how much ended up in someone's pocket.

This 'progressive internationalism" sounds like a new buzz term for the status quo. Like in corporate-talk, last year it was synergy ... this year it's team-building ... next year, we'll give re-engineering a whirl ...

Somehow, I don't think much will change. It sounds like, pretty much, the formula the US has been using all along, supposedly: through positive action in the world, support for genuine democracy, foreign aid.

And, Exxon, Bechtel, USB, AIG, and other mult-nationals still come out fine.

http://www.kucinich.us/issues/
International Issues:
Aid to Africa
Cuban Embargo
International Cooperation
Iraq
Korea
Middle East
Sweat Shops
Trade
World Hunger

[11cents]

5. Very worthwhile article

Made me think a bit better of Biden, though in his general demeanor he remains a parody of the pompous, self-adoring senator.

(But his service in torpedoing the Bork nomination will always merit him the benefit of the doubt, anyway.)

[pollock]

6. He seems critical of Clinton, yet don't see his policy as a failure.

Packer makes Biden seem like a progressive(let's build schools) but most of what I have seen and heard from Biden is pretty hawkish.
Although Packer criticizes the current administration(Bush is a poet?)
he seems to give them a pass, as if invade and conquer is superior to any slow diplomatic process.

[pollock]

7. too bad you only got a few replies!

It was really an extremely well written article; provocative in the right places.

[teryang]

9. Nice effort

I have trouble with several of the characterizations. Especially of Biden. If any Democrat has trouble articulating his position it must be him. The only impression I have of him is trying to sugar coat the American aggression against a people in Afghanistan and supporting the war in Iraq. If he was trying to do something else he certainly didn't make that clear at the time.

It is somewhat hypocritical to pose as the enlightened elder statesman of foreign policy after raining bombs down on civilians who haven't attacked us and presiding over slaughter. "Trust me, I'm here to help" is a common joke that entered the vernacular long before this. Ironic that a child sensed his hypocrisy. That same hypocrisy weighs heavily upon this article.

I like to hear Wellstone's side of the story but he is dead. If Wellstone didn't support Biden's version of the resolution, than there was something critically wrong with it. Perhaps the author should publish the original Biden Lugar proposal so it may be judged directly on its merits against the embarassing monstrosity of a blank check that was signed. My inference is that the leadership in Congress (including the Senate) is what is seriously deficient. To project this deficiency upon the people who have supported the democratic party and elected its representatives is an unjustified transference of moral culpability.

American CIA activities in central and southwest Asia mobilized, armed, trained, protected and promoted militant Islamic totalitarianism. This author apparently has forgotten that. The widespread killings, injustice, hardship and oppression are something his budget votes helpred pay for. I never heard Biden speak out against this policy. American foreign policy is to meddle in the internal affairs of foreign nations, topple governments, assassinate leaders, etc. This ideological cloak that he articulates is just that. Nor do I hear Biden speak out against the obvious obstruction of justice by this regime before and after 911 that empowered Saudi and Pakistani support of terrorism and now attempts to conceal that relationship.

Numerous Democrats have a correct understanding of what the "political dimensions of the struggle are." It isn't a "history of colonialism" it is colonialism.

If you want to make the cold war analogy, the preferred solution is coexistence, commerce and convergence, not bombs and conquests. Our regime is forcing our will upon others without a care for democracy, law or anyting else. The law we bring is the law Cortes brought to the Aztecs, sign this paper surrendering your sovereignty and resources to the royal charter or be killed. Like Cortes we will try to get factions among your countrymen to do it so we won't have to risk our own soldiers' lives if possible. The fact is we can't tolerate sovereignty in a targeted nation let alone democracy.

The notion that American citizens haven't sacrificed enough is ludicrous. Perhaps the author has some sort of guilt feelings in this regard. Many of us have served our country and community for many years to be rewarded with the same sort of corporate indifference shown to employees of downsized corporations while the corporatist defense junta gets unjustifiably larger and richer at our expense and that of our progeny. It is our corporations and the ruling elite who don't pay their fair share but instead profit from war whenever their price gouging and fraudulent schemes have otherwise exhausted the economy.

This attempt to articulate an alternative to conquest and hypocrisy in foreign policy as usual suffers from the very weakness it purports to remedy. One must disable the Pentagon, defense contractor, energy lobby, Israeli lobby axis in order to change the severely metasticized foreign policy of what amounts to a neo-fascist junta. One must remove and sanction the illegitimate government now in power. This is where culpability lies. Digging into 911, anthrax, the CIA, and the inextricably intertwined affairs of the BFEE, big energy and Saudi Arabia would enable a new foreign policy. Few elected representatives or journalists have the courage to stand up to it. As long as social priorities are aborted for contrived crises enabled to justify weapons procurement and conquest of resources, nothing will change. The necessary response is prosecutorial in nature not in hollowly articulating a foreign policy "vision."