Muscular Foreign Policy

Jim Geraghty writes in TKS about some interesting foreign policy assertions by liberal activist Noam Scheiber:

Related to the John Bolton argument over Democrats and their dovish image is this analysis of Noam Scheiber over at the New Republic, which Ramesh called interesting.

Read the whole thing. But here’s a key excerpt:

Except for a small circle of neocons, the only reason most conservatives support Bush's democratization rhetoric is partisanship — because, absent the democratization rhetoric, Bush's entire foreign policy would look like one big disaster, which would be devastating for the party.

The Democratic base, by contrast, consists of a bunch of activist types who love spending time and money on idealistic causes, and who can be convinced to spend it abroad as long as you persuade them the motivation is pure. They believe in things like democracy, human rights, civil society, responsible governance, etc. with every fiber of their being. (If you don't believe me, just ask yourself which party you think, say, most third world debt-relief activists cast their vote for, or members of the free-Tibet movement, or the groups who lobby for equal rights for women in the Muslim world. ...)

Conservatives love to make the world a better place. They just prefer to use daisycutters.

“Absent the democratization rhetoric, Bush’s entire foreign policy would look like one big disaster?” Come on. If you’re a fan of the Durbin Racism conference, you probably are disappointed. If you thought inviting Yassir Arafat to the White House 24 times in eight years was a good, effective strategy, you’re probably bummed.

And yes, the Bush foreign policy vision has been a disaster for the Taliban, Khalid Sheik Mohammed, Mohammed Atef and a bunch of other al-Qaeda leaders, Uday and Qusay, Saddam, the U.N. oil for food program, and anybody who bet money on Mommar Khaddafi taking a hard line. If the sight of Bashar Assad terrified and groveling to Joe Klein makes you blush, then maybe this isn’t the administration for you.

For everybody else, it’s had some pretty serious upsides.

Republicans support spending time and money on idealistic causes, as long as that cause involves killing some people who, to use the old Texas legal term, “needed killin’.” Fundamental to the right-of-center foreign policy vision is the concept that the world becomes a better place when certain people – terrorists, their supporters, dictators, drug smugglers, criminal gangs, kidnappers, and assorted riff-raff — are dead.

Actually, conservatives have all kinds of non-military idealistic ideas designed to help others. They prefer to trade with foreign countries, since an unfortunately high portion of foreign aid tends to go into the Swiss bank accounts of dictators and thugs. They’re suspicious of unaccountable, bureaucratic international organizations that micromanage member states’ economies like the EU. They like having the U.S. Navy armed to the teeth and sailing the seven seas, giving South Asian pirates something to worry about, ensuring the growth and safety of global commerce.

And it’s worth noting that the groups Scheiber refers to “third world debt-relief activists, members of the free-Tibet movement, groups who lobby for equal rights for women in the Muslim world” have an odd common trait: A record of spectacular ineffectiveness. They have proven themselves better at protesting, fundraising, and panel-discussion organizing than actually accomplishing the mission of their organization. When you actually need to remove impediments to women’s rights in the Muslim world, ironically it’s American-flown AC-130s than can do more than all the feminist lectures or petitions.

So far, the lesson many Americans are taking from the developments in the Middle East is that hawkishness works. Good things happen when you knock over the biggest bully on the block, the longtime impediment to peace kicks the bucket, and another bully on the block provokes a long pent-up defiant reaction by clumsily blowing up a popular leader. How that could conceivably be a positive development for the Democrats is beyond me.