Reporting from Yearly Kos 2007: A Progressive Foreign Policy

by Brian Beutler, The Media Consortium: Fri., Aug 3, 2007
Filed under: Media Consortium: journalism project

The past few years have been host to a fascinating phenomenon: Progressives have come together and settled upon a practically singular foreign policy vision, pasted together from a series of ideas–diplomacy, human rights, cooperation, prudence–that are decidedly non-revolutionary. And yet, despite its conservative-sounding origins, what they’ve come up with is a foreign policy ideal that’s both embarrassingly obvious but also compelling–one rooted in engagement with the world, an interest in the internal realities of other countries and regions, but with a humility about our ability or right to affect them. In short, a progressive realism.

Because of this unity of vision, the progressive foreign policy panel at YearlyKos–though comprised of experts not normally affiliated with the netroots–was one of the most engaging at the conference thus far. Moderator Ken Baer of Democracy, and featured guests Steven Clemons of the New America Foundation and Peter Beinart of The New Republic discussed an array of foreign policy problems–Iraq, military spending, global warming–currently facing the United States. [Disclosure: Clemons is a friend and former colleague of mine.]

“Our military spending, when you include the Iraq supplemental, now equals the spending of all other countries in the world,” Clemons noted starkly. “And Americans still feel unsafe. I’d say you have a management problem.” This, he noted, leads many around the world to misperceive the United States as a country that acts recklessly in the world because it’s too strong, and not because it perceives itself to be weak or at least imperiled.

“I actually think the world is diagnosing our weakness incorrectly.”

Acknowledging that disengagement from Iraq is both inevitable and bound to be a significant drain on our military and our prestige in the world, Clemons suggested that a parallel effort be made to seriously approach the problem of Palestine. He warned, too, that because of the “politics of distraction” countries like China and Russia have benefited from–and so have an interest in–America’s continued focus on the Middle East. As we broaden that focus, Clemons cautioned that our reaction to other players in the world will be critical, and that we’d be best served not to reflexively treat them as enemies.

Beinart, once a scourge among progressives for his erstwhile support for the Iraq war–and parallel criticisms of the left–sat chastened. “My record of predictions on Iraq is… poor. I supported the war. And I didn’t realize it was lost until later than I should have.” He went on, “I have become convinced… that there is not a middle path between 160,000 troops and something close to zero.”

“When we reached the tipping point past which political reconciliation in Iraq was impossible, I’m not sure. But at some point we did.” And so, using the precepts of a progressive realism, Beinart suggested we shift our thinking on both our nations’ short- and long-term objectives. “The goal is stability. As a long-term goal, supporting liberal democracy in the Middle East is I think a good one.”

Postscript: Here are some good observations from other bloggers at the panel.