by emptywheel
I seem to be having a blog-conversation with Michael Signer of democracyarsenal.org, who has returned to the questions I responded to here. Signer makes a great point about liberals and foreign policy. Democrats won't be able to compete on the foreign policy front until they can speak with conviction about foreign policy:
So, I ask whether we have what it takes. What we learned in the 2004 election -- to our shock and chagrin -- was we won't win over the country just with better policies and positions, with superior statistics and by the President's self-delusion and self-destruction, and with more charismatic or experienced candidates.
We will win it because the public trusts our conviction.
Signer uses this point to argue against watering down our key principles with exceptions, because doing so will undercut our conviction.
But I'd like to advocate a totally different approach. Rather than obsessing about our standpoint on the three founding priciniples Signer argued we share with the neocons, let's move away from that formulation altogether.
Rather than trying to find the proper balance between hegemony and exceptionalism (or, as one of Signer's commentors calls it more accurately, exemplarism), I'd like progressives and liberals to formulate a foreign policy based on the principle of sustainability.
I'm obviously borrowing the concept from ecology, the notion that our current rates of population and economic growth are unsustainable on this eath, and therefore we need to begin to balance the inputs and outputs of our consumer way of life.
This borrowing has the advantage, in my view, that it puts one of the most intractable global issues at the forefront of our thinking about foreign policy: climate change. Scientests are pretty sure global warming is already affecting our way of life. But the folks coordinating international issues rarely discuss it in the same circles as we discuss war and the economy and the military because, well, it doesn't really fit into our notions of foreign policy. In spite of the fact that the Pentagon is just about the only department of Bush's Administration that has admitted the reality and dangers of climate change.
The sooner we begin to think of our foreign policy in terms of sustainability, the sooner we can tell the truth about Iraq--and most of our other recent military adventures. The invasion of Iraq is completely unexplainable and indefensible so long as we think in the old terms of foreign policy. "The spread of democracy. Protecting ourselves from WMD." These sound like so much tripe because they're divorced from the underlying reasons for the action. But when you admit, clearly, that the world is running out of oil which probably means we're in for a time of utter chaos, then, perhaps, you'd be able to convince people that we need to extend our military presence in the Middle East to ensure we get some of what little oil is remaining. Or, better, once we admit these things, we can debate them, and talk about whether it is better to spend $300 billion dollars on an invasion that doesn't guarantee any stability in the Middle East, or to spend the same money on preparing for the near-term decline of oil supplies by developing alternatives and a less oil-dependent way of life? Instead of taking the lead on speaking of energy alternatives as a security issue, we've let the Neocons take the lead instead.
Defending energy supplies has been an explicit foreign policy goal since Carter. And if you believe Daniel Yergin, oil has been the foundation of our national hegemony. By speaking of it in terms of sustainability, rather than as a subset of larger foreign policy goals, we open up a lot more options for ourselves, such as investing in science rather than war.
Sustainability also has its economic sense which offers another advantage for it as a foreign policy concept. Arguably, we also went to war in Iraq to punish Iraq for moving its oil trade to the euro and to convince Iran not to follow suit. But our attempts to retain the dollar as the currency of the oil trade and reserves really address a fundamental unsustainability (PDF) in the global economy. We can't continue to serve as the consumer of last resort for the rest of the world. We can't continue to rely on $2 billion of investment a day from overseas. We can't continue to base our economy on an ever-increasing housing bubble. We can't continue to lose well-paying manufacturing jobs in exchange for service jobs that force workers to apply for Medicaid and food stamps.
The notion of economic sustainability is a concept that should unify the concerns of bankers and of line workers. Done wisely, our economic policy should strive to sustain the middle class, while ensuring (sustainable) economic growth. Instead, we have an economy with serial Enrons, where companies don't make anything anymore but loans and empty promises to stock holders. We need to restore an economy where localities are increasingly self-sufficient--which means they grow much of their own food, build a few products that pay workers enough so they can buy some other regionally-manufactured products, without relying on huge infusions of cash from Asian governments. (Not only do we need to do this, but once Peak Oil hits, we probably won't have much choice, so why not start preparing?)
This is particularly important because it offers a way to counter the fear-based militarism of the GOP . I disagreed with Signer that the passion in our foreign policy stemmed exclusively from 9/11. On the contrary, I suspect 9/11 provided the people who seemed the most incensed by it (that is, in my experience, those farthest away from places that got hit) with a focus for a lot of the insecurity Americans have felt since the 1970s, since Vietnam and OPEC proved we weren't invincible and since the buying power of the working class started to decline. In other words, if Democrats can promise working people that we will try to sustain the econmoically-secure way of life they knew thirty years ago (it's a lot less exciting than new consumer goods every week, but I've got to believe a lot of people would prefer the security of keeping what they have), then we ought to be able to compete with the jingoistic passion of the Right.
This promise of sustainability can't be a nationalist venture, though. I'm one who is skeptical that China will be the next hegemon, only because its growth is even more unsustainable than our own. China has had increasingly frequent confrontations over pollution; while Hu Jintao is censoring bloggers, the peasants are the ones really challenging the government. And if they do keep growing at the rate they're growing, a devastating war over resources will be almost unavoidable. So rather than offering developing nations with an unsustainable dream of attaining things that aren't even sustainable in our own country (I witnessed Ford sell their first Lincoln Navigator in China not long ago), we need to find a development that offers something more sustainable. Not only is this more fair, but it will stave off otherwise unavoidable confrontations over resources in the very near future.
Finally, I'd like to stretch the notion of sustainability somewhat, to encompass the wisdom that we can no longer intervene in other countries without finding a sustainable solution to the problems we're addressing. We should not carry out an action--whether covert or overt--that we're not willing to resolve in a manner that will be sustainable over the long term. For example, we should not take out a popularly-elected leader only to up the ante on the extremism that would be required to sustain a sovereign leader in that country. We should not mobilize Islamic anti-imperialism without also addressing our own imperialism in Islamic lands.
We discovered with World War II that wars that don't achieve sustainable solutions aren't victories at all. Now, with Fourth Generation Warfare, we can't even call smaller interventions victories unless we can find a long-term solution to the problem we intervened to solve. I'm not saying we can't ever intervene. I'm saying we need to be a lot more diligent about achieving a real resolution before we leave; and if we can't forsee or don't have a plan for that resolution before we go in, we don't go in.
I'm sure the concept of a sustainable foreign policy needs some work before it's ready for prime time (I haven't touched on what the concept of sustainability might bring to anti-proliferation or self-defense, for example). But doing that work now is better than squabbling over hegemony or exceptionalism. Quite simply, we don't have a choice. We're not going to remain hegemonic. Or if we do, it will be as a continually mobilized empire that won't be very pleasant to live in anyway. Alternately, we can spend our waning power on a plan to sustain what is good about life on the globe right now. We might not be able to completely resolve some of the more complex problems we have presented for ourselves. But we'll be a lot more likely to survive them.
One problem I can see with the sustainability approach is that developing nations might interpret such a program as little more than maintenance of the status quo, where they (India and China particularly) must hamstring their breakneck pace in order to keep in the good graces of the powers that be. For them, conforming might be a mug's game...while making economic gains in large part due to unsustainable practices, I suppose they'd be content to say 'you go first, and if it seems workable in five years, maybe we'll think about it'.
So then, it would come back to carrots and sticks if we wanted to really simplify things, where the hegemon tries to dictate global economic development based in part upon upstanding virtues of having a planet to stand on a hundred years from now (present leadership excepted of course), and also in protecting its charmed position by stunting the growth elsewhere that seems to pick up as our's wanes.
Kind of rambling here for lack of sleep, but I think it's a hard sell and in this case seems likely for key players to view it as a zero sum game.
Posted by: wd | June 14, 2005 at 20:24
Well, we could start by ending agricultural subsidies. It'd be a quick way to show some really poor developing nations we're serious. Ditto, we could release developing nations from the debt and economic development agreements they've been stuck under for the last couple of decades; if they could retain subsistence agriculture with some boutique products, they'd be better off than by competing on the commodity market against a bunch of other equally cheap producers. And heck, if they could invest in education, rather than charging the poor for it, they'd be a lot better off.
And it's clear that some developing nations--particularly China--are aware they can't provide everyone with an American way of life. Several people in China's government have admitted how unsustainable their growth is in both economic and particularly environmental terms.
I don't want to diminish your criticism; I think it's a real problem. But I think there are a lot of ways we could show our good faith. That is, if we really were serious about it.
Posted by: emptywheel | June 14, 2005 at 21:05
wd
Now that I think about it, I guess that's what the question of sustainability comes down to--is there a point at which Americans will be happy that approaches the level where we'd only be using our fair share of stuff?
Right now, the average ecological footprint in the US is 24 hectares. We'd have to cut that to a fifth--to 5 hectares per person--to be really sustainable. I'm a fairly frugal person (high mileage car, little driving, I eat low on the food chain, and have a small house), but I'm still only a fifth of the way to where I need to be to be sustainable (and that doesn't account for all my plane flights).
But to me, it keeps coming back to necessity. For a long time we've been able to use five times the resources as the rest of the world. But that was before 4th G warfare and global warming have made that impossible--to say nothing of peak oil. So we might as well start figuring out a way to adjust now.
Posted by: emptywheel | June 14, 2005 at 22:26
I mean acres. The average American has a footprint of 24 acres.
Posted by: emptywheel | June 14, 2005 at 22:33
You're right that there are many ways that the US could show leadership in the world, and I'll try not to bemoan the fact that the sort of leadership you propose (which I agree is the right direction) is just not in high demand with the American electorate. There is the sort of 'fat and happy' obliviousness to everything that makes such proposals a nonstarter at present.
My thinking is that people just don't really care until it hits them where it hurts, until then, or unless the progressives can find truly charismatic leadership that knows how to drill the message simply, bluntly and effectively, people won't vote to change our course (4 dollar a gallon gas would probably the least painful way for people to get shaken out of their dumbass slumber, IMO). It's pessimistic, sure, but just like I feel that any move in China towards political liberalization will require a catalyst/crisis, so too do I think that a true shift to deep progressive ends here will require some major catalyst...or we could find inspiring leaders, but I don't see any in the field that can shake the habitual Republicans to go Dem for the sheer sake of common sense and their children.
Posted by: wd | June 14, 2005 at 22:47
wd, I think you're basically right.
I do think the gas crunch might make people take a bit more attention pretty soon, though.
Ben P
Posted by: Ben P | June 15, 2005 at 04:07
I agree with you but wonder how you sell sustainability to our elites and the population. Sustainability might not be able to compete well with fear, especially now that the prospect of terrorism can be manipulated by our own leaders. And I wonder if sustainability implies a kind of self-restraint that would be described as weakness. Sustainability would also have to compete with our national fantasies of abundant consumer goods. I hope I'm wrong, but sustainability might have to overcome our militarism and commdoity fetishes.
Posted by: KdmFromPhila | June 15, 2005 at 06:48
I think sustainability would require a bit of a long sell. But it's a long sell that at least has the advantage of accounting for where society will be headed and what crises we'll be seeing.
Some ways to pitch sustainability to begin to get people attracted are to talk about self-reliance and security. A bit of old-fashioned convservatism (in the environmental sense and in terms of talking about the good old days when we didn't have 2 hour commutes every day) would help. Then, with every crisis that comes up, we maintain message discipline. "California's economy tanking because the housing bubble popped? Well, that's why we need to return our economy to something sustainable, like small-scale manufacturing, again." "5 hundred-year hurricaines the second year in a row? Well, that's why we need to start doing something about global warming. If we don't start thinking about sustainability, then it will seem normal to have this kind of crazy weather--and everyone will need to move out of Florida!"
IMO opinion, the biggest challenge will be to wrest control from the speculators, who stand to lose the most. (Isn't it nice, btw, that Joe Biden can claim to be the calm and sane one while he's basically a whore for a house of cards economy?) But a bit of old-fashioned class warfare might do the trick. "Those fatcat capitalists who want you to import your food from Brazil instead of buying your neighbor's peas? They're just trying to get rich off of other people rather than doing hard work, like your neighbor."
I was one of those people who regularly talked (to friends, quietly) about how vulnerable we were to a terrorist attack pre-9/11. I look back now and realize how badly those of us who expected an attack played that. We said (Richard Clarke avove all) that no one would listen. So we didn't call out warnings loudly enough. It's not that I think people will necessarily listen to the warnings (although, with increasing insecurity, a lot of people WOULD choose a more sustainable life if given the choice). It's that I realize we really need to own this debate before the first OBVIOUS examples hit Fox news, so we can direct what we'll do in those circumstances.
Posted by: emptywheel | June 15, 2005 at 08:07
The word 'sustainability', has a tree-hugger feel to it. Try framing it as self-reliannce instead. Self-reliance has a rugged, pioneer image that fits with American history. It builds naturally on George Washington's call to shun foreign entanglements, and reminds us of our traditional concern for our neighbors.
Posted by: corncam | June 15, 2005 at 10:52
Yup, I've actually used self-reliance in a few places. I'm going to test it in a big way this weekend with my bigoted Republican brother--I got his son two "Harry Thoreau" books (picture books with Thoreau's concents to them) for his birthday. I'm curious to see if they've been read--or trashed.
Posted by: emptywheel | June 15, 2005 at 11:01
Really excellent series of posts, Emptywheel. This is an idea that need s a lot more attention. Kids take to this sort of thing very well in my experience, and if we had an enlightened leadership (economic as well as political) here, sustainability or self-reliance could become very, very cool. But profit drives it all, so I am afraid we don;t see progress until companies fear being left behind in the race to produce more sustainable technologies and products.
It really has to do with whether you feel a sense of connection to and responsibility towards others in space and time (the future)--a broad sense of community. I personally think this is one of the ways in which we are much less well off than in my childhood and youth. Our parents really had that sense of responsibility and were willing to sacrifice in many ways for a better future for their children.
Hegemony and exceptionalism sound so masculine and tough, but they are really a dead end for both our country and our planet, and I hope that some sort of genuine alternative vision can be generated by our party in this area as well.
Posted by: Mimikatz | June 15, 2005 at 12:18
Thanks Mimikatz.
I'm just hoping we can find the voice on which to hang just that sentiment, that we had a broad sense of community in our past (Feingold would be great if he weren't busy with the divorce). I can never be accused too often of being too idealistic, but I think it might appeal to a broad swath of the electorate.
Posted by: emptywheel | June 15, 2005 at 13:00