Ahem.

'cupboard is scarily bear'

The cupboard is 1) ursine? 2) less than sanguine about the direction of S&P Industrials?

Or 'bare'? As in 'empty'?

Yikes. 'scarily' I won't even get started on.

I am so tired of people saying that progressives/Democrats/liberals need to articulate a clear vision for the future. How about not corrupt, not idiotic, not alarmist, and not belligerent. The sad fact is that when Bush got into office he wanted to do everything not-Clinton because he so despised Democratic, liberal, environmentally conscious and nuanced foreign policy. It was a choice he made.

If Democrats achieve power in any branch of government, being anti-Bush will be an absolute necessity. There is not one program, idea, policy or campaign begun by the Bush Administration that is not inexorably leading us off a cliff.

Perhaps an analogy is in order. There is a house in the neighborhood. It is infested with drug dealers, crack addicts and a gang that is laying waste to the neighborhood. The police finally do something about them; the house is seized and put up for auction. Do you think the neighborhood is going to insist that any new occupants have to have a positive plan for the future? Now way. How about NORMAL? Keep to themselves, mow their lawn, don't pick fights with the neighbors, keep their house in good order, and occasionally invite friends, family and neighbors over for a cookout.

What we need running the government is anything other than a Tasmanian devil with a god complex.

I think the emphasis needs to be on the much broader vision of human rights- democracy=voting is much too narrow and as we know in America (with 100 years of slavery after elections) democracy can be consistent with oppression. Human rights should be the focus.

J.S.

http://voicesofreason.info

Like others, I am also deeply ambivalent about any flavor of neo-Wilsonianism no matter how well-motivated. Norms of international conduct? Where exactly do you draw the line then, on "unacceptable" behavior?

On an individual level I think we should continue to embrace the 1948 UN Declaration of Universal Human Rights. We should continue to offer asylum and help those who are fleeing their countries from rights abuses. No way in hell anybody can justify, say, clitoridectomy as just another "cultural practice" that we Westerners can't deign to judge. That road leads to nihilism.

On the level of nations it becomes much more difficult, of course, and I have no great bag of suggestions. Job One is stop drunkenly threatening everybody we don't like. Iran *will* be in our orbit in a generation or so, once the baby boomers take their positions in society. And yes -- Italy deserves great credit for stepping up to the Lebanese plate and should be rewarded in some way for doing so.

Sometimes a nation *does* need to wield a stick. But if that nation isn't trusted to act with anything but the most venal and self-aggrandizing of motives, the stick becomes worse than the alleged whack-worthy sins.

Before all else, we have to sweep the belligerent, drunken abusers from our neighborhood.

We can talk sensibly about this when the Bush Terrorists are vanquished.

CFShep:

Nice bear trap :)

Bob

'with 100 years of slavery after elections' - J.S.

Ummm...yeah, that, too.

To say nothing of government sponsored and largely successful genocide against the aboriginal inhabitants. Even managed to turn it into mass entertainment which salvery adherents never quite, having lost, managed to accomplish.

You have only to read Lucy Dawidowicz's account ('The War Against the Jews 19933-1945' Bantum) of children in the Warsaw ghetto and in the extermination camps playing 'cowboys and indians'.

Which is true. I asked a nice couple, both survivors of Dachau, if this was so and they admitted it was and that they had done so themselves.

Said my question gave them a new perspective about what had happened to them.

Going over voiceofreason.info to check it out.

Seems to me democracy promotion should have been dealt with through economic policies, but we sort of screwed the pooch on that one with our pro-corporate "engagement" policies over the last few decades. Changing course now would be impossible and futile. We no longer have a corner on any manufacturing sector and we're losing some ground in science and consumerism.

In addition, any foreign policy suggestions have to be put in context. Are you looking for suggestions for 1) what W should do, 2) what a democrat should do in 2009, 3) what a democrat would do if he miraculously took over the white house tomorrrow, or 4) what democrats should talk about in campaigns this fall?

1) an interesting question. sort of like what the best technique would be to get an obstinate four year old to drive a cadillac to the grocery store. Reverse psychology and a parking break? very tricky.

2) what will the state of our military, our alliances, and our economy be? How many more countries will we bomb? too many variables.

3) too science fictiony

4) My advice: be honest and emphasize that there is no easy solution for mess W has gotten us into. Diplomacy and international cooperation will be necessary but it might take decades to regain the international respect necessary to work at our goals effectively. Might never happen.

Nice bear trap :)

Bob

Thanks, but now I have this image of the last remaining grizzlie with his back up against the last remaining redwood trying to get his broker on his cell phone: 'Sell. Sell now. Go short on Dow."

Yes, replace "democracy promotion" with "adovacte human rights." Best to get down to basics.

Bob, "democracy promotion" is very different than "advocate human rights." If we indeed believe that democracy is the best available form of government, why beat around the bush?

Jimmy Carter had it almost right. No support for tyrannies. Carter blew it when he allowed the CIA to intervene in the Iranian Revolution and let the Shah into the US for surgery, but he did the right thing dropping the Shah and Samoza from the military/secret police payroll. The economic 'suffering' by corporations is no reason the US should support dictatorships so monopolists can exploit others' natural resources. Any economic suffering by the economy as a whole will be short lived, as reaching out to nationalists who seek self-determination will create stable markets in the long term.

The only problem with this policy is the American people have been educated to think military hegemony is in their best interests, which it is not, making it difficult to move towards a foreign policy of justice and fair play. What needs to be emphasized to the electorate is the political and economic benefits that come from states which have popular support.

Shadi Hamid:

Democracy *promotion*? Sure, no problem. *Promoting* democracy is a matter of soft power: advocacy, encouraging dissidents in undemocratic countries, education, rebuttal of propaganda, etc. I'm all for that.

Hard power, OTOH, can't jump-start democracy, because democracy demands certain cultural requisites in order for it to adequately function. Merely imposing elections or frightening countries into opting for elections is absolutely no guarantee that you're going to wind up with a democratic society after the process.

Whack the Islamic world, tell them to go vote -- and they'll vote in Islamists. Is this an expression of popular sovereignty? Yes. Does it lead to democratic rights for all? Hardly.

It's a tricky process which demands decades of careful sheparding and cultivation ...

Bob