I was reading a piece at Alternet the other day that discussed a report from Brookings -- itself a center-right Establishment institution -- on the continuing influence of the neo-cons on Obama and on US foreign policy. It observed:
According to a May report (pdf) from the Brookings Institution, a Washington, DC think tank, neoconservatives associated with prominent figures like former Assistant Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz, Weekly Standard Editor Bill Kristol and pundit Richard Perle are still broadly active, despite policy failures associated with the 2003 invasion of Iraq.
Why do neocons remain influential? Let's behold below the fold.....
The piece notes a number of things about neocons. Despite their total failure on Iraq and Afghanistan, they remain committed to their core values. They are nurturing a younger generation of neoconservatives, and they have erected institutional frameworks that nuture young talent and get it space in the media and access to the Beltway Establishment so that the neocons can remain influential in Washington. Neocons take action and support each other. It observes:
"In this sense, neoconservatism is regenerating itself and keeping a balanced age pyramid," writes Vaisse. "After all, its idealistic, moralistic and patriotic appeal may be better suited to attract young thinkers than the prudent and reasonable calculations of realism."
But Vaisse argues that it’s not just the individuals who make the neoconservative movement. Just as important -- perhaps more so -- are the "institutions that support them and the publications that relay their views and shape the public debate," and Vaisse offers the assessment that in this respect, "neoconservatives are well positioned."
Citing the American Enterprise Institute, the Hudson Institute, Project for a New American Century, Commentary, and The Weekly Standard, Vaisse writes "These younger neoconservatives have generally received their first internships and jobs, and published their first articles in the old network of friendly think tanks and publications built by the older generation of neoconservatives."
One of the more recent and robust institutions, according to the report, is the Foreign Policy Initiative (FPI), created in the spring of 2009. Operating under the direction of Bill Kristol, Robert Kagan and Dan Senor, FPI is "animated by young operatives" and according to Vaisse "is already making its mark on the Afghanistan and human rights debates, notably by sending public letters signed by neocons and non-neocons alike," a technique that is a hallmark of neocon action.
Progressives here complain about the influence of Neocons and often attribute it to our center-right corporate media and to corporate power in our culture. This is only partly right. Let's review what the piece as a whole notes:
- Neocons have institutional frameworks that support their action
- Neocons have a principled vision which they implement in their action
- Neocons are nuturing new talent within their institutional frameworks
- Neocons produce texts for public and policymaker consumption, fostered by 1-3.
Against this, where are the progressives? If Obama wishes to turn to progressives for advice, which institutions should he consult? Brookings, oft described as a "liberal" think tank is a center-right think tank populated by realists, who are not noticeably more progressive than the neocons. The Center for American Policy is also an Establishment institution.
Further, if Obama wishes to listen to progressives on foreign policy, what does he hear that is different from the center-right Establishment foreign policy analysts? Is the focus different? No -- reading DKOS and you will be treated to endless diaries on Israel, but few on places like Japan, South America, Australia, Central Asia, or Africa. Every kossack is aware of Gaza, but I'll bet few know of the conflict between India and China over Arunachal Pradesh and none have policy prescriptions for it. The discussions among progressives simply mirror the general ascendancy of Israel over US foreign policy discussions without adding anything new to it.
Where are our institutions? Is there a set of progressive policy institutions that think seriously about places like Central Asia? Is there a set of progressive policy institutions that nurture talented young progressives in their engagement with Washington policy discussions? Is there a constant flow of letters with positive policy prescriptions towards the media that Washington reads? Are there White Papers? The situation is so wretched that such questions are purely rhetorical.
Further, is there some progressive policy recommendations on foreign policy? What is the progressive attitude toward Taiwan? Toward the Maoist insurgency in Nepal? Toward the Falklands? Toward the burgeoning civil war in the Philippines? Where can I go to find this out? Reading writing by progressives on US foreign policy at places from Dkos to Counterpunch to Znet to HuffPost, one finds tons of critique, but far fewer positive recommendations. If all you do is carp, you won't be listened to. Further, while conservative publications spend a great deal of time discussing international affairs, it seems when I look at progressive pubs, the focus is far more on domestic affairs.
The lack of a pro-active progressive foreign policy means that the neocons and realists will always be listened to first. The lack of progressive willingness to grapple with the meaningful use of power in international affairs means that such power will generally be used in ways that retard rather than advance the human condition.
The bottom line is that the neocons and their friends aren't winning because of some lack of scruple or because the corporate media especially love them: they are winning by default. They control the conversation because they participate in it.
How can we change this? First, we need a thinktank or three for progressives that focuses entirely on foreign policy and involves itself in the major foreign policy issues of the day, and by that I mean things like the rise of China, the changing place of Latin America in the global system, the oil and gas pipeline networks across Central Asia, or the opening of the Arctic to vessels and mineral exploration, or nuclear proliferation. You know, the stuff of life for Great Powers.
We also need publications that are delivered to Congress persons on a regular basis. We need open letters issued by progressive institutions, and we need policy papers. We need a constant flow of commentaries in Washington newspapers and in the cyberworld at places like Huffington Post. We need to place articles in Foreign Affairs and Foreign Policy and other prominent journals. We need to construct email discussion groups like ChinaPol that connect progressive scholars on foreign policy with each and with media doyens and the foreign policy establishment. Cyber-institutions too: we have Street Prophets, why not ForeignKos?
Things won't change overnight. But without a robust institutional structure to provide a foundation for activism on foreign policy, no change will ever occur. Let's start thinking about how we're going to build it.
Vorkosigan