This site is best viewed using Firefox.
Dear friends…Attached is an excellent
article by Peter Beinart, editor of the New Republic Magazine. In it,
he makes a compelling argument that a vigorous anti-totalitarian foreign policy
by the Democrats is the key to any resumption of power. He makes an effective
comparison to liberal’s anti-communist stand after World War II, and points
out that as bad as Vietnam was, it was supported for so long because it was
perceived as part of the fight against Communism, a liberal endeavor. His
arguments resonate with me because totalitarian states and totalitarian
intentions by al Queda and other Muslim fanatics are far more antithetical to my
liberal values than most anything the Republican Party does. I have argued with
many of my friends that societies where half the people (the women) have no
rights are not societies I can support, unless I know for sure that the
persecuted half want it that way. The only way to know that are free and fair
elections, a liberal institution.
I agree with Mr. Beinart that it is almost hypocritical on the part of liberals to profess liberal values here at home but to ignore them or even prevent their advancement throughout the world just because the are currently being espoused by a right wing Republican president. I also believe that it would not be inconsistent to oppose the invasion of Iraq—which I did for many reasons—and still support a proactive, indeed powerful foreign policy that included pressuring repressive societies to liberalize by all means short of military force, humanitarian and defensive reasons excluded.
Beinart also makes clear the symbiosis of supporting a liberal foreign policy for domestic policy reasons. For instance, the atrocities at Abu Graib prison, the persecution of reporters like Judith Miller or the denial of a woman’s right to choose are not liberal acts. By linking our government’s domestic behavior to our expectations of foreign societies we can reverse the direction we are taking here. This was how liberals achieved civil rights victories in the 1960s. Much of this can be done using George Bush’s own words.
And words are a big part of this process. Combining a
hawkish foreign policy with a liberal agenda can be framed (thank you George
Lakoff) in such a way as to pull in much of the good we are doing in Iraq and
Afghanistan under the liberal umbrella, simultaneously redefining Bush as a
liberal and over time minimizing the negative stigmatism the “l” word
currently has in society, especially in the red states.
Liberals can also prove their patriotic mettle by calling
for the reinvigoration of the Peace Corp with tens of thousands of new recruits.
John Kerry touched on it briefly in the primary but regrettably dropped it due
to a perceived lack of money. But a good argument can be made that on a dollar
per person saved basis, a liberal humanitarian army like the Peace Corp may be a
lot more economical than leveling entire towns.
Liberals have had a long history of activism when it comes to human rights in other countries. Just because a president we all loathe is now doing it, should not stop us from continuing what we believe in. Otherwise, we will become the conservatives and they the liberals, which I believe will put us on the wrong side of progress.
Sincerely,
Jim Forbes