A plea for bipartisan foreign policy
Here’s an argument for a return to the kind of bipartisan foreign policy we had during WW II and the early Cold War years. Among their many points about what led to the collapse of bipartisanship, and what can be done, Charles Kupchan and Peter Trubowitz at Real Clear Politics say:
Former Secretary of State Dean Acheson once claimed that 80 percent of the job of foreign policy was “management of your domestic ability to have a policy.” He may have exaggerated, but he expressed an enduring truth: good policy requires good politics. Bringing ends and means back into balance would help restore the confidence of the American public in the conduct of U.S. foreign policy. But implementing a strategic adjustment will require dampening polarization and building a stable consensus behind it. As Roosevelt demonstrated during World War II, sound leadership and tireless public diplomacy are prerequisites for fashioning bipartisan cooperation on foreign policy.
I’m not too sure about this. The extremities of WW II forced bipartisanship, as did the later bipolar world with its unprecedented “nuclear terror.” The Truman and Eisenhower era administrations worked hard, both openly and covertly, to convince Americans to be frightened of the Soviets and the “international communist conspiracy,” and this management of fear worked well enough to produce bipartisanship. The Bush administration is trying to push and manage fear of a “global network of terrorists,” but either its not working, or it’s too soon to tell.
Written by Ayschlay
Big Mo Says:
July 9th, 2007 at 11:16 amVisit Big Mo
You’re on to something there. Fear does play a role, and definitely was a major factor in the Cold War. And you’re correct to point out that the united front isn’t quite working this time.
From a historical perspective, it would be incorrect to say that we always had it, then lost it post-World War II. The Second World war was a remarkable show of unity across almost the entire political spectrum. During much of the Cold War, though, unity was hit or miss. And in the current era, it’s spotty at best.
What’s to account for it? If we can get beyond the simplistic charges of who’s more patriotic than whom or who is the greater fearmonger that conservatives and liberals usually throw at each other, I think it may come down to the simple fact that conservatives truly see Islamic jihad as a threat that needs a worldwide military political response, while liberals truly see such a response as doing far more damage than good, and a solution lies elsewhere.
So, you’re right, in that it’s too soon to tell.
If the next administration abandons the Bush approach, then it will of course have failed. If the next administration continues this approach, then we will still be waiting to see.
(I hope I’m making more sense in my replies