The Fading Freedom Mission

Saw this piece today written by David Broder in the Stamford Advocate. I found it interesting in a number of ways. The main things that I found interesting, I have highlighted below. Let me know if you agree.

When President Bush, in his second inaugural address, pledged to "support the growth of democratic movements and institutions in every nation and culture, with the ultimate goal of ending tyranny in our world," he seemed to be speaking for the whole country.

But two years later, a disillusioned American public, sobered by the war in Iraq and still fearful of more terrorist attacks here at home, is ready to settle for a less idealistic goal: protecting the United States and its vital interests.

That is the main lesson of a poll that was released to me last week by the leaders of Third Way, a left-leaning Washington think tank (results are available online at http://www.third-way.com/).

It is something the presidential candidates might well read. The poll was done by a reputable firm, Penn, Schoen & Berland Associates, interviewing a sample of 807 registered voters between Jan. 30 and Feb. 4. The challenge the survey presents is a large one.

To be blunt, the Bush prescription for American foreign policy -- an aggressive effort to expand freedom and democracy around the globe -- has lost its credibility. But neither Republicans nor Democrats are widely trusted to construct a new policy.

Doesn't it make sense for a courageous candidate from the middle or a party advocating independent thinking to construct a policy that will appeal to these voters that have lost faith in both of the main parties? I would certainly get behind a candidate who can formulate and communicate this policy, regardless of party affiliation.

Two-thirds of political independents -- the swing voters -- agree with the statements that Republicans are too quick to use military force instead of diplomacy and are too stubborn in refusing to negotiate with hostile countries.

But by nearly as large a margin, those same independents agree that Democrats are not tough enough to do what is needed to protect America and that they are unwilling to use military force, even when it's necessary for national security.

This seems like the proverbial chicken and egg problem. If Republicans are too quick to use force, and Democrats are too willing to negotiate without the threat of force, what is the rock solid standard between these two extremes? Unfortunately in human history war is inevitable when it becomes necessary to defends ones property and sovereignty, but while I find the results of this poll interesting, these two results don't offer candidates any clear cut way to proceed. We all know every situation and crisis is going to be different and the length of time to be diplomatic versus when to use force is going to vary.

Overall, independents have moved closer to Democratic positions on foreign policy, meaning that the Republicans' almost-automatic advantage on national security issues may be a thing of the past.

Those doubts leave Americans in a quandary -- and very worried about the future. Matt Bennett, a vice president of Third Way, told me, "Candidates need to recognize Americans have been shaken in their confidence."

The Sept. 11 attacks, more than five years old, remain a vivid threat. Large majorities -- including most Republicans -- reject Vice President Cheney's contention that the absence of a second attack means we are safer. Instead, they say that the threat of terrorism has increased since 2001, and they believe that the war in Iraq has made us less safe, not more.

I am glad that people are finally coming around to the fact that this debacle in Iraq has achieved none of the goals or objectives that were originally intended. All that our presence there is doing is further pissing off the people who hate us and giving them reason to get others to hate us.

One victim of that psychology is Americans' belief in the worldwide democratic mission that Bush invoked so powerfully on Jan. 20, 2005. Now, by 58 percent to 36 percent, the voters say that "it is a dangerous illusion to believe America is superior to other nations; we should not be attempting to reshape other nations in light of our values."

Although I solemnly believe that the United States is the best country in the world to live in, and I would never want to live anywhere else, not everyone in the world agrees with me, nor does everyone in the world want to be like us. This administration seems to have learned nothing from the British a hundred years ago. It is impossible to manage or administer another country that does not welcome your presence.

I have always been a big fan of the Wilsonian ideal of self-determination. For better or worse, if a general election or plebiscite is held and the people vote for their preferred style of government then we have no business interfering in those affairs. Look at Palestine, they voted for Hamas, now they need to live with Hamas. IF Hamas can show to their people that they are more than a terrorist organization and they can serve the people then good for them, if not then the Palestinians should vote in some new party during the next elections

By an even greater proportion -- almost 3 to 1 -- they say the main goal of American foreign policy should be to protect the security of the United States and its allies, rather than the promotion of freedom and democracy.

As I have been saying since 9/11, our national guard and armed forces are better served here in the states protecting our ports, highways and borders rather than fighting a difficult, perhaps unwinnable war in a foreign land that is only adding to the insurgency and increasing the chance for a future major terrorist attack within our borders. How would we feel if another sovereign country invaded our borders, put in a new government, then stayed to help enforce the peace? We would throw them out as fast as we could, not too different from what the Iraq's are doing. Let them solve there own post-Saddam problem, then we should come in to negotiate for the oil rights.

The impact of Iraq can be seen in another question. By 70 percent to 27 percent, they agree with the statement that "sometimes it's better to leave a dictator in charge of a hostile country, if he is contained, rather than risk chaos that we can't control if he is brought down."

Practicality now trumps idealism at every turn. Endorsements of U.S. policy by allies and international organizations are highly valued. By 58 percent to 38 percent, those polled agree with the statement that "if negotiating with countries that support terrorism, like Iran and Syria, will help protect our security interests, the U.S. should consider negotiating with them."

But practicality is far from a complete policy. What people really want is a way of looking at the world and understanding America's part in it -- a narrative that would replace the rejected Bush scenario. As William Galston of the Brookings Institution, who was a consultant on the poll, remarked to me, "Until now, most of the candidate-posturing has centered on Iraq." But this poll suggests a deeper need. "People are looking for a candidate who suggests a way to defend our essential interests while regaining some of our lost esteem."

Who is up to the task?

Who indeed? All the current crop of candidates seem to be pandering to the extremes of their parties rather than catering to the middle, where the real battle line should be fought. The person that is able to do that, will be well on their way to capturing the 2008 election. But hey, that is just me.