While many people feel content that our Democratic candidates are offering a radical departure from the disastrous Bush policy, I disagree. Let’s face it, it doesn’t take a genius to see that Iraq was a mistake and that attacking Iran would be even more foolish. But the underlying assumptions of our foreign policy, accepted by a majority of the Democratic contenders, are based on incorrect premises. I think that in this election we, the grassroots left, have an unprecedented opportunity to demand our candidates change the mindset in which they are framing our foreign policy. Believe it or not, the American public is ahead and to the left of the Democratic field and correctly so. I’ll explain how the candidates current assumptions will prolong problems indefinitely into the future and how we can change it-
If you were on boat crossing the ocean and the Captain decided to steer it radically to the right, you would not consider steering it to the center as an adequate "course correction". Common sense tells you that you’d still end up way off target and radically to the right. That’s what’s happened to our country’s foreign policy and it will always slowly drift that way until another catastrophe happens or until we demand a real difference, a change towards the publicly supported left, not the politically calculating center. Make no mistake, in a post 9-11 world the US needs to reassess some of the right-leaning foreign policy that creates mistrust and hatred, and that you are not seeing that reassessment from the current Democratic field.
An actual progressive foreign policy would demand that Israel recognize a Palestinian state with sovereignty over its resources and borders just as equally as they demand Palestine recognize what ever borders Israel happens to occupy this week. A real progressive wouldn’t detail a long list of atrocities committed by Palestinians and then not mention any atrocities committed by Israel. A real progressive would treat a Palestinian or Lebanese life with the same weight that they treat an Israeli life. That’s not the current case with our Democratic frontrunners.
You hear a lot of Democratic candidates promise about "being more of an even-handed partner in regards to the Israel-Palestinian conflict" but in reality, even their words are not even handed. I have yet to hear a Democratic candidate express what a majority of Democratic voters and mainstream Americans support- a two-state solution where Palestine is recognized and its border respected just as equally as Israel’s is, with no dotted lines subject to change.
All the time you hear about how Palestine or some other Middle East country "can’t be negotiated with because they don’t recognize Israel’s right to exist"- that’s a deceptive statement, perpetuated by both sides of the isle. If recognizing and legitimizing Israel’s occupation, which the UN doesn’t even do, is a mandated first step in diplomacy, then the US will continue to be viewed as a heavy-handed negotiator regardless of what party is in office. To the moderates around the world, whether they are European Christians or Middle-Eastern Muslims, we will be viewed as stubborn, dogmatic and uncompromising in our policy that unnecessarily favors Israel to the detriment of both our countries.
If every time a Democratic candidate describes Hezbollah as "Iranian-sponsored-terrorist group" or throws out the unsubstantiated "Iran funds terrorism" claim, they undercut the idea that the Iranian people can or should be negotiated with and reinforce the myth that they have no legitimate complaints and are a monolithic threat, therefore any change on our foreign policy is useless.
If the premise is even the "Democrats agree that Iran funds terrorism, and that a nuclear armed Iran can’t be allowed", then it makes logical sense that the progressives will always look weak when trying to stop a war with Iran. Independent and swing voters will rightly think "Heck, if Hillary, Edwards, Obama and Clark all say that a nuclear armed Iran is unacceptable, that the US must dictate the terms of their development and they won’t rule out military action, then the only party that’s strong on national defense must be those willing to wage war over that bipartisan-recognized threat". The pro-war MSM will gladly follow that line of argument and reinforce that frame.
If the Democratic paradigm is just "more use of carrots, use stick only as last resort" than the Bush regime, they’re still assuming that Iran is our errant horse to reward or punish to begin with. That’s not the case at all, we’re the irresponsible horse thieves, pretending that since we’re able to steal the neighbors horse (militarily overthrow Iraq) we’re also justified in threatening the neighbor’s horse as well. Only the "unacceptable far-left" candidates would dare suggest that the US is in no position to lecture or demand any country on its development or use of nuclear weapons.
A progressive candidate would give a different narrative, one of hope not fear. A nuclear armed Iran is no threat to the US and maybe, just maybe, the Iranian people (a majority of which want democratic and economic reforms) will stop electing hard-liners if they have a handful of nukes to use as a deterrent instead.The same crew that is freaking out about the mere possibility of Iranian nuclear power (years away from now) are the exact same ones that were trying to sell US supplied nuclear processing capabilities under the brutal Shah in the 70’s with one exception, now they can claim that the "left-wing" Democratic candidates are also on board with the hype.
It can end this time. As compared to other elections, We The People have more influence now, we’re able to counter the MSM and big money donators. A candidate can’t ignore the grassroots without hurting their chances of winning.
So what can you, the reader, do personally? Instead of typing up the latest fawning diary of the Democratic candidate which you’ve invested the most emotional ties to and then try to make us feel the same way, let that person you support realize that it isn’t some unqualified Manichean obedience to their image. Your fellow Kossacks will give your position more credence, because it isn’t one-sided.
If you support Edwards, maybe you should critically read his words at the recent Herzilya conference and write a diary saying "I would whole heartedly support Edwards if only he would...". If Hillary’s your gal and you think she’s got the goods to help us out of this mess, you should ease the non-Hillary supporter’s suspicions out there and send a message at the same time with an entry about how "we want someone who admits mistakes and recognizes that it was a bad idea from the beginning." Even Obama, who claims to "not be against all wars, just dumb wars" at one point proclaimed his support for military strikes if Iran refused US demands. That’s dumb policy, we make unreasonable demands on purpose just to create a conflict.
Unfortunately, if we settle for nothing now, they’ll give us nothing later. We’re letting these guys get away with the status quo and praising them at the same time. If we pretend that progressive Democratic candidates are offering a fundamental shift in our foreign policy now, when they truly aren’t, then you can expect a continuation of these disastrous policies in future campaigns.