Foreign Policy is not really something that is a decider in US elections I think, outside of hugely egrarious things
And even then, if you are a Republican you can get away with hugely egrarious foreign policy
This was basically my point, yeah. I also don't think the left has a coherent articulation of their own foreign policy yet outside of "don't do bad things" when it comes to running for elections.
I don't think that there is a foreign policy left in US mainstream politics, really, but even if there were I think that it would be such a massive shift against entrenched institutional US values that it would be really hard to bring in, and certainly take time. But the Israel situation is one area in which I think policy from the top could make a big difference, although I think that it would need to be coupled with 1) a change in relations with the KSA and 2) a detente with Iran that was sustainable. Ultimately the US has dragged itself very deep into the Middle East and probably one of the biggest problems with a lot of leftist ideas re. foreign policy (IMO) is that it comes down to isolationism, a lot of the time.
The article is horserace-narrative bait and everyone here is fighting over who gets to take it.
Well I can prove to you that it isn't a non-thing because 1) people obviously do care about it, a lot, and 2) it had a direct impact on the lives people of Palestine and Israel.
God you know the arrogance of American political narratives. You're the most powerful country in the world and your leaders throw around statements that are hugely impactful on the lives of people in other countries, who cannot make you accountable in any way, and you toss away the issue like it's a meaningless irrelevancy. It's not important what Biden will do on Palestine because it's not an important issue, it's irrelevant. It's not fucking irrelevant if you're Palestinian is it? No. Remember what happened in response to Trump's statement? People died!
I get what you're saying. The statement has an appreciable impact on people's material lives. I get that. At the same time I think this is still partly a non-thing because I doubt very few people, here or the broader American electorate, are going to change their vote over the issue. I'm still not convinced that policy -- either domestic or foreign -- actually matters significantly for the American presidential election.
In that case; why not make a pledge to dial back support of Israel and it's apartheid policies? If it doesn't actually matter, then why does it matter so much that Biden not do that?
Totally reasonable. I was just thinking that the issue is kind of a non-issue to the general electorate.
I think it's one of those made up things for why we can't do good in the world and at home. Mostly so that pockets can be appropriately lined.
So I want you to know I'm not being glib when I ask this, but have you ever worked in a politician's office? Like sat in on the frank conversations the office has? I've done it now at the local and state level and politicians absolutely do think about their constituents, what they support or don't support, who comes out to vote, who doesn't come out to support, etc. They think about it for almost every single thing they do -- maybe they weight it more on some issues and weigh it less on others, but they still think about it.
And the thing is, they should do that because they represent us. Thing is, and something I feel like gets lost here, is that this forum has generally very different political views from the majority of America on a lot of things. That's become less of a thing over the last number of years, but it's absolutely the case.
Not to be glib but it sounds like you worked for someone who lacks leadership. Being kowtowed to polls is a surefire way for people to view someone as rudderless and not find them worthy of following.
I mean I said they weight it more on some issues and weigh it less on others, so I don't think reading my old boss as being kowtowed to polls is really accurate. There's more gradient between "kowtowed to polls" and "ignore the polls all the time".
That said, your point was that "political capital is bullshit" and I'm pointing out that it's not.
I am unconvinced that a politician being lead by polls is proof that political capital is a real thing. We have evidence to the contrary sitting in the oval making decisions every day.
The article is horserace-narrative bait and everyone here is fighting over who gets to take it.
Well I can prove to you that it isn't a non-thing because 1) people obviously do care about it, a lot, and 2) it had a direct impact on the lives people of Palestine and Israel.
God you know the arrogance of American political narratives. You're the most powerful country in the world and your leaders throw around statements that are hugely impactful on the lives of people in other countries, who cannot make you accountable in any way, and you toss away the issue like it's a meaningless irrelevancy. It's not important what Biden will do on Palestine because it's not an important issue, it's irrelevant. It's not fucking irrelevant if you're Palestinian is it? No. Remember what happened in response to Trump's statement? People died!
I get what you're saying. The statement has an appreciable impact on people's material lives. I get that. At the same time I think this is still partly a non-thing because I doubt very few people, here or the broader American electorate, are going to change their vote over the issue. I'm still not convinced that policy -- either domestic or foreign -- actually matters significantly for the American presidential election.
In that case; why not make a pledge to dial back support of Israel and it's apartheid policies? If it doesn't actually matter, then why does it matter so much that Biden not do that?
Totally reasonable. I was just thinking that the issue is kind of a non-issue to the general electorate.
I think it's one of those made up things for why we can't do good in the world and at home. Mostly so that pockets can be appropriately lined.
So I want you to know I'm not being glib when I ask this, but have you ever worked in a politician's office? Like sat in on the frank conversations the office has? I've done it now at the local and state level and politicians absolutely do think about their constituents, what they support or don't support, who comes out to vote, who doesn't come out to support, etc. They think about it for almost every single thing they do -- maybe they weight it more on some issues and weigh it less on others, but they still think about it.
And the thing is, they should do that because they represent us. Thing is, and something I feel like gets lost here, is that this forum has generally very different political views from the majority of America on a lot of things. That's become less of a thing over the last number of years, but it's absolutely the case.
Not to be glib but it sounds like you worked for someone who lacks leadership. Being kowtowed to polls is a surefire way for people to view someone as rudderless and not find them worthy of following.
I mean I said they weight it more on some issues and weigh it less on others, so I don't think reading my old boss as being kowtowed to polls is really accurate. There's more gradient between "kowtowed to polls" and "ignore the polls all the time".
That said, your point was that "political capital is bullshit" and I'm pointing out that it's not.
I am unconvinced that a politician being lead by polls is proof that political capital is a real thing. We have evidence to the contrary sitting in the oval making decisions every day.
Work for more politicians then. Get involved. Guarantee you nearly every single one thinks about these things even if the biggest exception to all political practice and strategy currently sits in office.
I don't think Trump is that much of an anomaly as far as republicans go. The media doesn't like him very much but that doesn't seem to matter.
The media we consume, no, but the media Trump's base consumes is constantly falling over themselves to prove they are more loyal to Trump than the next outlet
It's amazing the conclusions someone can come to when they ignore everything that contradicts their worldview
Foreign Policy is not really something that is a decider in US elections I think, outside of hugely egrarious things
And even then, if you are a Republican you can get away with hugely egrarious foreign policy
This was basically my point, yeah. I also don't think the left has a coherent articulation of their own foreign policy yet outside of "don't do bad things" when it comes to running for elections.
I don't think that there is a foreign policy left in US mainstream politics, really, but even if there were I think that it would be such a massive shift against entrenched institutional US values that it would be really hard to bring in, and certainly take time. But the Israel situation is one area in which I think policy from the top could make a big difference, although I think that it would need to be coupled with 1) a change in relations with the KSA and 2) a detente with Iran that was sustainable. Ultimately the US has dragged itself very deep into the Middle East and probably one of the biggest problems with a lot of leftist ideas re. foreign policy (IMO) is that it comes down to isolationism, a lot of the time.
I disagree with the isolationist bent for myself but I can see how people get there.
Foreign Policy is not really something that is a decider in US elections I think, outside of hugely egrarious things
And even then, if you are a Republican you can get away with hugely egrarious foreign policy
This was basically my point, yeah. I also don't think the left has a coherent articulation of their own foreign policy yet outside of "don't do bad things" when it comes to running for elections.
I don't think that there is a foreign policy left in US mainstream politics, really, but even if there were I think that it would be such a massive shift against entrenched institutional US values that it would be really hard to bring in, and certainly take time. But the Israel situation is one area in which I think policy from the top could make a big difference, although I think that it would need to be coupled with 1) a change in relations with the KSA and 2) a detente with Iran that was sustainable. Ultimately the US has dragged itself very deep into the Middle East and probably one of the biggest problems with a lot of leftist ideas re. foreign policy (IMO) is that it comes down to isolationism, a lot of the time.
I think one can look at the Obama presidency for a pretty clear example of how this doesn't work. And Obama was a ridiculously mild shift in terms of US-Isreal policy.
Foreign Policy is not really something that is a decider in US elections I think, outside of hugely egrarious things
And even then, if you are a Republican you can get away with hugely egrarious foreign policy
This was basically my point, yeah. I also don't think the left has a coherent articulation of their own foreign policy yet outside of "don't do bad things" when it comes to running for elections.
I don't think that there is a foreign policy left in US mainstream politics, really, but even if there were I think that it would be such a massive shift against entrenched institutional US values that it would be really hard to bring in, and certainly take time. But the Israel situation is one area in which I think policy from the top could make a big difference, although I think that it would need to be coupled with 1) a change in relations with the KSA and 2) a detente with Iran that was sustainable. Ultimately the US has dragged itself very deep into the Middle East and probably one of the biggest problems with a lot of leftist ideas re. foreign policy (IMO) is that it comes down to isolationism, a lot of the time.
I disagree with the isolationist bent for myself but I can see how people get there.
I disagree with isolationism as well but it is definitely a big strain in a lot of leftist thought
Foreign Policy is not really something that is a decider in US elections I think, outside of hugely egrarious things
And even then, if you are a Republican you can get away with hugely egrarious foreign policy
This was basically my point, yeah. I also don't think the left has a coherent articulation of their own foreign policy yet outside of "don't do bad things" when it comes to running for elections.
I don't think that there is a foreign policy left in US mainstream politics, really, but even if there were I think that it would be such a massive shift against entrenched institutional US values that it would be really hard to bring in, and certainly take time. But the Israel situation is one area in which I think policy from the top could make a big difference, although I think that it would need to be coupled with 1) a change in relations with the KSA and 2) a detente with Iran that was sustainable. Ultimately the US has dragged itself very deep into the Middle East and probably one of the biggest problems with a lot of leftist ideas re. foreign policy (IMO) is that it comes down to isolationism, a lot of the time.
I think one can look at the Obama presidency for a pretty clear example of how this doesn't work. And Obama was a ridiculously mild shift in terms of US-Isreal policy.
I think it can work, I think it didn't with Obama. And honestly I think a big part of that is that Obama didn't really prioritise the ME as an admin policy goal. He was Pacifically orientated. He said as much, several times. I often think that Obama wanted to get a deal with Iran just so his admin could stop needing to think about what they were going to do with Iran. But I think the entrenched FP institute in US politics (IC, Pentagon etc) really gives a massive shit about the ME and US policies there which was another reason he kept on being dragged back in.
Foreign Policy is not really something that is a decider in US elections I think, outside of hugely egrarious things
And even then, if you are a Republican you can get away with hugely egrarious foreign policy
This was basically my point, yeah. I also don't think the left has a coherent articulation of their own foreign policy yet outside of "don't do bad things" when it comes to running for elections.
I don't think that there is a foreign policy left in US mainstream politics, really, but even if there were I think that it would be such a massive shift against entrenched institutional US values that it would be really hard to bring in, and certainly take time. But the Israel situation is one area in which I think policy from the top could make a big difference, although I think that it would need to be coupled with 1) a change in relations with the KSA and 2) a detente with Iran that was sustainable. Ultimately the US has dragged itself very deep into the Middle East and probably one of the biggest problems with a lot of leftist ideas re. foreign policy (IMO) is that it comes down to isolationism, a lot of the time.
I disagree with the isolationist bent for myself but I can see how people get there.
I disagree with isolationism as well but it is definitely a big strain in a lot of leftist thought
I think it's in large part a reaction to misadventures in Vietnam and the Middle East over the years.
Im not sure how "political capital isnt real" and "political capital doesnt accomplish anything" are very different statements.
The same way saying "I can't watch anything because the tv is off" vs saying "I can't watch anything because I don't have a tv". Both may say the same thing, but the solutions are wildly different
Foreign Policy is not really something that is a decider in US elections I think, outside of hugely egrarious things
And even then, if you are a Republican you can get away with hugely egrarious foreign policy
This was basically my point, yeah. I also don't think the left has a coherent articulation of their own foreign policy yet outside of "don't do bad things" when it comes to running for elections.
I don't think that there is a foreign policy left in US mainstream politics, really, but even if there were I think that it would be such a massive shift against entrenched institutional US values that it would be really hard to bring in, and certainly take time. But the Israel situation is one area in which I think policy from the top could make a big difference, although I think that it would need to be coupled with 1) a change in relations with the KSA and 2) a detente with Iran that was sustainable. Ultimately the US has dragged itself very deep into the Middle East and probably one of the biggest problems with a lot of leftist ideas re. foreign policy (IMO) is that it comes down to isolationism, a lot of the time.
I think one can look at the Obama presidency for a pretty clear example of how this doesn't work. And Obama was a ridiculously mild shift in terms of US-Isreal policy.
I think it can work, I think it didn't with Obama. And honestly I think a big part of that is that Obama didn't really prioritise the ME as an admin policy goal. He was Pacifically orientated. He said as much, several times. I often think that Obama wanted to get a deal with Iran just so his admin could stop needing to think about what they were going to do with Iran. But I think the entrenched FP institute in US politics (IC, Pentagon etc) really gives a massive shit about the ME and US policies there which was another reason he kept on being dragged back in.
Obama didn't prioritize the ME or Israel but he also wasn't really trying to accomplish much drastic. The extent to which Bibi could flip him the bird over even just that though is illustrative of how much what the President thinks about Israel really matters for US foreign policy as a whole. You can't go top down, there's too much entrenched ideology on the subject. You need a shift in the electorates and the media and the political class's view on the subject.
When I see political capital employed it is always in such a manner democrats cannot do something and in such a manner that Republicans can do something.
Trump moving the embassy is good political capital. Obama pushing the ACA bad political capital. These are ideas pushed by center to center left news orgs. They almost always seem to be influenced by how much money is behind an idea.
psn: PhasenWeeple
+4
Options
FencingsaxIt is difficult to get a man to understand, when his salary depends upon his not understandingGNU Terry PratchettRegistered Userregular
edited May 2020
Part of the reason Republicans and Democrats think about political capital differently is because the far right of the Republican Party is the base, and so doing extreme things is actually where they want to go; the reliability of the Republican voter over the nonRepublican is one reason why we think about politics the way we do.
Political capital as an idea, a sort of fiction used as an attempt to simplify a broad network of systems at play in regards to the interplay of executive, legislative and voting populace in achieving policy
Unfortunately we then take that fiction an treat it like a discreet thing that can be spent instead of realizing you’re dealing with something much much more complex and malleable and seemingly full of contradiction.
The reason we talk about the GOP not giving a fuck about political capital is because they have a much firmer grasp on how to actually manipulate it, to effectively “produce” more capital, while Democrats and technocratic wonks think of it as a finite resource you can only push so far or expend but so much of before you run out.
Foreign Policy is not really something that is a decider in US elections I think, outside of hugely egrarious things
And even then, if you are a Republican you can get away with hugely egrarious foreign policy
This was basically my point, yeah. I also don't think the left has a coherent articulation of their own foreign policy yet outside of "don't do bad things" when it comes to running for elections.
I don't think that there is a foreign policy left in US mainstream politics, really, but even if there were I think that it would be such a massive shift against entrenched institutional US values that it would be really hard to bring in, and certainly take time. But the Israel situation is one area in which I think policy from the top could make a big difference, although I think that it would need to be coupled with 1) a change in relations with the KSA and 2) a detente with Iran that was sustainable. Ultimately the US has dragged itself very deep into the Middle East and probably one of the biggest problems with a lot of leftist ideas re. foreign policy (IMO) is that it comes down to isolationism, a lot of the time.
I think one can look at the Obama presidency for a pretty clear example of how this doesn't work. And Obama was a ridiculously mild shift in terms of US-Isreal policy.
I think it can work, I think it didn't with Obama. And honestly I think a big part of that is that Obama didn't really prioritise the ME as an admin policy goal. He was Pacifically orientated. He said as much, several times. I often think that Obama wanted to get a deal with Iran just so his admin could stop needing to think about what they were going to do with Iran. But I think the entrenched FP institute in US politics (IC, Pentagon etc) really gives a massive shit about the ME and US policies there which was another reason he kept on being dragged back in.
Obama didn't prioritize the ME or Israel but he also wasn't really trying to accomplish much drastic. The extent to which Bibi could flip him the bird over even just that though is illustrative of how much what the President thinks about Israel really matters for US foreign policy as a whole. You can't go top down, there's too much entrenched ideology on the subject. You need a shift in the electorates and the media and the political class's view on the subject.
Or maybe the people we keep electing are themselves ideological actors favoring these positions
Like this is part of the problem. Y’all keep talking about this as if democratic leaders are only passive managers*, chained to the whims of a turbulent land, instead of having actual ideological actors themselves among the party who favor these positions.
*this is a somewhat complicated thing as often times when it comes to progressive movements the last few decades have seen the party leadership be passive when it comes to enacting change.
Arguably, this could be explained with the understanding that Democratic leadership is, in many ways, lower case c conservative and only moves forward on an issue once American society has adopted it as the status quo; for example LGBT rights being left primarily to activists fighting in lawsuits instead of any real legislative effort to affirm those rights.
Political capital follows from actual capital by way of "wonks" and corporate media. Surprisingly the influence stems by whoever gives the most real capital. That is why it always favors right wing policies.
That is why it isn't an appreciable thing to worry about. It's made up!
The GOP has a fundamental advantage over the Dems in that the US is an extremely inequal, capitalist, authoritarian, nationalist and in places theocratic place... Which is exactly what they want. It's also a place where the political systems allow a large rural minority to effectively stonewall any change, which; see above.
The GOPs enjoy a status quo which is to their desire, with the support of that large rural minority. What progressives want is to fundamentally change the US, and the GOP can just say "nope!" and that's about it a lot of the time.
You could theoretically trade something the GOP wants that it doesn't have, like say okay we'll have single payer healthcare but we'll ban abortions federally... Like you'd probably get that trade. But you can't actually offer that because it's hideous to contemplate. In a system designed for it to be hard to change things, the side that enjoys a natural advantage due to stuff like the electoral college and the increased value of rural votes, plus already has their vision closer to the status quo, is always going to look like winners because... They are winning. So the Dems have limited political capital; they're always at a disadvantage in the trade.
lol at republicans having clear ideologies. They change their platform literally weekly using their FoxNews mouthpiece to go against what they wanted the week before because the grift isn't good anymore.
Case in point, the past decade of leadership by mitch McConell wherein he has engaged in levels of ethical contortionalism that ~were it actual human anatomy~ would be assumed to be an optical illusion or some form of stage magic.
The GOP has a fundamental advantage over the Dems in that the US is an extremely inequal, capitalist, authoritarian, nationalist and in places theocratic place... Which is exactly what they want. It's also a place where the political systems allow a large rural minority to effectively stonewall any change, which; see above.
The GOPs enjoy a status quo which is to their desire, with the support of that large rural minority. What progressives want is to fundamentally change the US, and the GOP can just say "nope!" and that's about it a lot of the time.
You could theoretically trade something the GOP wants that it doesn't have, like say okay we'll have single payer healthcare but we'll ban abortions federally... Like you'd probably get that trade. But you can't actually offer that because it's hideous to contemplate. In a system designed for it to be hard to change things, the side that enjoys a natural advantage due to stuff like the electoral college and the increased value of rural votes, plus already has their vision closer to the status quo, is always going to look like winners because... They are winning. So the Dems have limited political capital; they're always at a disadvantage in the trade.
I think that we're overlooking the fact that the right has spent years literally investing in a political media machine with many nationally syndicated outlets, a massive cable news outlet and holding corporations capable of buying out local affiliates in order to generate their capital.
The Democrats have done... none of that. And instead try to play within that ecosystem instead of trying to counter it.
A party who used to be the party of the New Deal and the Great Society and the Civil Rights Act.
The party used to be able to accomplish all these important progressive improvements of the 20th century, and then somewhere around the 1970s and 1980s just... stopped, and allowed the GOP to basically set the stage for what is politically feasible in the United States domestic and foreign policy. For christ's sake, our ostensible nominee for the executive this year voted for the Iraq War! Despite having nothing to do with the 9/11 attacks, despite all the clear to anyone paying attention bullshit of the Bush administration.
They. Have. To. Do. Better.
And they won't so long as we keep making excuse after excuse after excuse for some of the most powerful goddamn people in this country.
+12
Options
MeeqeLord of the pants most fancySomeplace amazingRegistered Userregular
Its ok guys, us minorities get it. Its hard to fight the conservatives, much easier to leave the vulnerable open to harms. Much easier to wait for the populace to make up their minds, then try to take credit for being on the right side the whole time.
Except those of us in the firing line don't get the luxury of this stuff not hitting us. There is a reason why a contingent of the Dems is always pushing for more, and its because the status quo is directly dangerous to us. Not in a nebulous not feeling comfortable way, but in a down on the ground being beaten/shot/killed sort of way.
Thats the reality for some of the posters here, please try to keep that in mind when some of us criticise liberals. Its not that we don't believe that you want to help, its just that the help offered by liberals is very frequently just a drop out of the very large bucket that the conservatives and dominionists heap on us.
And it's frustrating because like... this is supposed to be the foreign policy thread! But we have such fundamentally differing views on the problem that we can't move forward because to actually get into the deeper issue with America's foreign policy we end up having to dial further into fundamental failures within the functioning of the Democrats to formulate and achieve policy, otherwise we get into arguments about arguing in bad faith instead of these fundamentally different reads on the situation
+11
Options
MeeqeLord of the pants most fancySomeplace amazingRegistered Userregular
Exactly. Like, what is Dem foreign policy other than a promise to be a kinder gentler hegemon at this point? And the answer is, it depends on the internal politics within America at the moment. The Dems are basically always reactive, rather than setting the terms of policy struggle.
Exactly. Like, what is Dem foreign policy other than a promise to be a kinder gentler hegemon at this point? And the answer is, it depends on the internal politics within America at the moment. The Dems are basically always reactive, rather than setting the terms of policy struggle.
Not really in this case. The Democrats aren't promising to be a better hegemon because they are reactive, they are promising to be a better hegemon because that's what they want to be. America, as a political entity, is pretty happy with it's hegemony. Especially the american domestic political sphere in general. And the parts that aren't mostly look like Trump or some kind of left- or right-wing isolationism.
And it's frustrating because like... this is supposed to be the foreign policy thread! But we have such fundamentally differing views on the problem that we can't move forward because to actually get into the deeper issue with America's foreign policy we end up having to dial further into fundamental failures within the functioning of the Democrats to formulate and achieve policy, otherwise we get into arguments about arguing in bad faith instead of these fundamentally different reads on the situation
Yes, most of this discussion is a distraction meant for a different thread.
Biden made a foreign policy statement. Some of us criticized it. Some countered that it didn't matter. Others offered a round about quasi-defense of Biden based on perceptions of the American electorate and notions of political capital, and so we fell into the current boring rabbit hole that has little to do with foreign policy.
One poster earlier said this was a non-issue because voters don't care much about this. That may be true, but what bearing does that have on the discussion in this thread? It's a foreign policy thread, not an election thread or a political science thread. We're going to discuss foreign policy here regardless of whether America writ large cares about it; that's the point.
The GOP has a fundamental advantage over the Dems in that the US is an extremely inequal, capitalist, authoritarian, nationalist and in places theocratic place... Which is exactly what they want. It's also a place where the political systems allow a large rural minority to effectively stonewall any change, which; see above.
The GOPs enjoy a status quo which is to their desire, with the support of that large rural minority. What progressives want is to fundamentally change the US, and the GOP can just say "nope!" and that's about it a lot of the time.
You could theoretically trade something the GOP wants that it doesn't have, like say okay we'll have single payer healthcare but we'll ban abortions federally... Like you'd probably get that trade. But you can't actually offer that because it's hideous to contemplate. In a system designed for it to be hard to change things, the side that enjoys a natural advantage due to stuff like the electoral college and the increased value of rural votes, plus already has their vision closer to the status quo, is always going to look like winners because... They are winning. So the Dems have limited political capital; they're always at a disadvantage in the trade.
I think that we're overlooking the fact that the right has spent years literally investing in a political media machine with many nationally syndicated outlets, a massive cable news outlet and holding corporations capable of buying out local affiliates in order to generate their capital.
The Democrats have done... none of that. And instead try to play within that ecosystem instead of trying to counter it.
A party who used to be the party of the New Deal and the Great Society and the Civil Rights Act.
The party used to be able to accomplish all these important progressive improvements of the 20th century, and then somewhere around the 1970s and 1980s just... stopped, and allowed the GOP to basically set the stage for what is politically feasible in the United States domestic and foreign policy. For christ's sake, our ostensible nominee for the executive this year voted for the Iraq War! Despite having nothing to do with the 9/11 attacks, despite all the clear to anyone paying attention bullshit of the Bush administration.
They. Have. To. Do. Better.
And they won't so long as we keep making excuse after excuse after excuse for some of the most powerful goddamn people in this country.
It was the 1960s actually. It took awhile to make itself felt in all corners though. Till the early 90s really in Congress. And the reason is the Civil Rights era happened and fundamentally reshaped american politics.
Foreign Policy is not really something that is a decider in US elections I think, outside of hugely egrarious things
And even then, if you are a Republican you can get away with hugely egrarious foreign policy
This was basically my point, yeah. I also don't think the left has a coherent articulation of their own foreign policy yet outside of "don't do bad things" when it comes to running for elections.
I don't think that there is a foreign policy left in US mainstream politics, really, but even if there were I think that it would be such a massive shift against entrenched institutional US values that it would be really hard to bring in, and certainly take time. But the Israel situation is one area in which I think policy from the top could make a big difference, although I think that it would need to be coupled with 1) a change in relations with the KSA and 2) a detente with Iran that was sustainable. Ultimately the US has dragged itself very deep into the Middle East and probably one of the biggest problems with a lot of leftist ideas re. foreign policy (IMO) is that it comes down to isolationism, a lot of the time.
I think one can look at the Obama presidency for a pretty clear example of how this doesn't work. And Obama was a ridiculously mild shift in terms of US-Isreal policy.
I think it can work, I think it didn't with Obama. And honestly I think a big part of that is that Obama didn't really prioritise the ME as an admin policy goal. He was Pacifically orientated. He said as much, several times. I often think that Obama wanted to get a deal with Iran just so his admin could stop needing to think about what they were going to do with Iran. But I think the entrenched FP institute in US politics (IC, Pentagon etc) really gives a massive shit about the ME and US policies there which was another reason he kept on being dragged back in.
Obama didn't prioritize the ME or Israel but he also wasn't really trying to accomplish much drastic. The extent to which Bibi could flip him the bird over even just that though is illustrative of how much what the President thinks about Israel really matters for US foreign policy as a whole. You can't go top down, there's too much entrenched ideology on the subject. You need a shift in the electorates and the media and the political class's view on the subject.
Or maybe the people we keep electing are themselves ideological actors favoring these positions
Like this is part of the problem. Y’all keep talking about this as if democratic leaders are only passive managers*, chained to the whims of a turbulent land, instead of having actual ideological actors themselves among the party who favor these positions.
*this is a somewhat complicated thing as often times when it comes to progressive movements the last few decades have seen the party leadership be passive when it comes to enacting change.
Arguably, this could be explained with the understanding that Democratic leadership is, in many ways, lower case c conservative and only moves forward on an issue once American society has adopted it as the status quo; for example LGBT rights being left primarily to activists fighting in lawsuits instead of any real legislative effort to affirm those rights.
The Obama example is again illustrative. We know from basically all the behind the scenes reporting that Obama and his people fucking hated Netanyahu. Which is unsurprising given what he was up to. But their ability to actually do anything about that was extremely limited. Because in the end politicians are beholden to various power players within their political system. Including, in democracies, their voters. And picking a fight with Israel is just not popular with any of those groups.
And again, Obama wasn't trying to do anything radical in the slightest re: the US-Israel relationship. But even that was out of reach because there is no political support for it among any major interests in US politics and you need political support to get shit done in politics.
Exactly. Like, what is Dem foreign policy other than a promise to be a kinder gentler hegemon at this point? And the answer is, it depends on the internal politics within America at the moment. The Dems are basically always reactive, rather than setting the terms of policy struggle.
Kinder and Gentler... aside from, you know, the drone bombings. Democrats still really like their middle east drone bombings as a method of dealing with potential harmful actors.
And then when the collateral damage gets to be too much, instead of going "maybe we don't kill people with drones" we instead go "Why don't we make a sword missile instead."
I think one problem with forging a left wing foreign policy is that socialist notions of internationalism are based around working class solidarity across borders, and unity against our respective ruling classes.
It is very difficult, in my experience, to translate those ideals into foreign
policy prescriptions for the United States government. So instead the left tries to tweak liberal internationalism to make it less crappy, or gives up and turns toward isolationism.
I've personally sort of given up trying to imagine a socialist foreign policy for Washington and generally just think in terms of harm reduction at this point.
As far as foreign policy prescriptions. Sanctions seem just as detrimental to our goals as a normal war would be. Often allowing suffering for decades longer than a normal war would.
We should not be selling military tech to anyone imo especially since there is a ton of self dealing going on in that space.
Foreign policy aside the RX-9 model Hellfire missile aka the missile made of knives is actually pretty good at reducing collateral damage as it has a payload of knives rather than explosives, a car hit by one looks as though it has suffered a very strange highway accident rather than blowed up
Of course this might the operators of such missiles more likely to take whacks at targets all willy nilly
Broke as fuck and the bills past due, all amounts assist and are kindly received.
When your only favorite foreign policy tool is a hammer sword drone...
Amended for US Foreign Policy preference
EDIT: In a way it's both amazing and yet totally predictable that our takeaway from Vietnam wasn't "maybe massive swaths of death and destruction are bad" but "Our soldiers dying is bad PR." So we just keep figuring out ways to keep the death and destruction without the "putting US lives at risk" part, and then being very confused when it turns out the death and destruction just makes people want to fight you more.
Lanz on
+6
Options
MonwynApathy's a tragedy, and boredom is a crime.A little bit of everything, all of the time.Registered Userregular
The literal history of the United States from the 20th century onward has LITERALLY been strong arming the other nations of the world into accepting our vision of it through a mix of military and diplomatic and economic powers
We are the remaining super power on this planet and the primary hegemon. I am utterly baffled that we keep swerving back to this “well there’s nothing the US can really do, we just don’t have the kind of pull necessary to change the world” mindset and it feels like a baffling kind of self serving hand washing regarding avoiding the complicated yet necessary work of using out standing in the world to improve it rather than just continue a status quo that is literally destroying lives
What you are missing, Lanz, is that the world is not static and that there are now other powers that, while unable to throw around the total fuck-you we are capable of, can easily fill in comparatively small gaps like the Israeli arms budget.
China used to be a nuclear-armed backwater unable to feed its own people, they weren't exactly going to be able to replace whatever foreign aid the US decided to cut off. Now they can, and the hell of it is that because they're an authoritarian hellhole they can be relied on to keep doing it in a way that no democratic nation can. China will turn a blind eye to outright Israeli genocide of Palestinians because, firstly, they don't really care, and secondly, China is guilty of genocide too.
Or we can try to keep some sort of hand on the tiller. I'll take that option, even if it leaves us dirty.
When I see political capital employed it is always in such a manner democrats cannot do something and in such a manner that Republicans can do something.
Trump moving the embassy is good political capital. Obama pushing the ACA bad political capital. These are ideas pushed by center to center left news orgs. They almost always seem to be influenced by how much money is behind an idea.
Well different political parties with different bases have different abilities to support different policies.
As an example of things Democrats can do but Republican's cannot is to work on anti-racism and pro-women initiatives. If Republicans do this they lose their base. Democrats don't trust them to do this anyway. They gain nothing and lose everything.
The difference here is that this is very much a situation where the Democratic party is split and there isn't much we can do about it in the short term. Well except for what Biden said he was going to do. Which was open up a US consulate in East Jerusalem specifically to benefit Palestinians.
What is happening here is that you're falling for that conservative media construction that you so decry. They reported that Biden wasn't going to move the embassy in big bold letters at the top and hid what he was actually going to do, which is a positive thing that is receiving negative press in Israel, down at the bottom of the article. The full context of the quotes is lost because controversy drives eyeballs and splitting democrats creates controversy.
Posts
I don't think that there is a foreign policy left in US mainstream politics, really, but even if there were I think that it would be such a massive shift against entrenched institutional US values that it would be really hard to bring in, and certainly take time. But the Israel situation is one area in which I think policy from the top could make a big difference, although I think that it would need to be coupled with 1) a change in relations with the KSA and 2) a detente with Iran that was sustainable. Ultimately the US has dragged itself very deep into the Middle East and probably one of the biggest problems with a lot of leftist ideas re. foreign policy (IMO) is that it comes down to isolationism, a lot of the time.
You are just changing the bar constantly.
"Political capital isn't real."
Here is some limited evidence that it is.
"Well it doesn't accomplish anything."
¯\_(ツ)_/¯
The media we consume, no, but the media Trump's base consumes is constantly falling over themselves to prove they are more loyal to Trump than the next outlet
It's amazing the conclusions someone can come to when they ignore everything that contradicts their worldview
I disagree with the isolationist bent for myself but I can see how people get there.
I see no evidence that is in fact my point.
What kind of evidence would be convincing to you?
Evidence that confirms their worldview
I think one can look at the Obama presidency for a pretty clear example of how this doesn't work. And Obama was a ridiculously mild shift in terms of US-Isreal policy.
I disagree with isolationism as well but it is definitely a big strain in a lot of leftist thought
I think it can work, I think it didn't with Obama. And honestly I think a big part of that is that Obama didn't really prioritise the ME as an admin policy goal. He was Pacifically orientated. He said as much, several times. I often think that Obama wanted to get a deal with Iran just so his admin could stop needing to think about what they were going to do with Iran. But I think the entrenched FP institute in US politics (IC, Pentagon etc) really gives a massive shit about the ME and US policies there which was another reason he kept on being dragged back in.
I think it's in large part a reaction to misadventures in Vietnam and the Middle East over the years.
3DS: 0473-8507-2652
Switch: SW-5185-4991-5118
PSN: AbEntropy
The same way saying "I can't watch anything because the tv is off" vs saying "I can't watch anything because I don't have a tv". Both may say the same thing, but the solutions are wildly different
Obama didn't prioritize the ME or Israel but he also wasn't really trying to accomplish much drastic. The extent to which Bibi could flip him the bird over even just that though is illustrative of how much what the President thinks about Israel really matters for US foreign policy as a whole. You can't go top down, there's too much entrenched ideology on the subject. You need a shift in the electorates and the media and the political class's view on the subject.
Trump moving the embassy is good political capital. Obama pushing the ACA bad political capital. These are ideas pushed by center to center left news orgs. They almost always seem to be influenced by how much money is behind an idea.
Unfortunately we then take that fiction an treat it like a discreet thing that can be spent instead of realizing you’re dealing with something much much more complex and malleable and seemingly full of contradiction.
The reason we talk about the GOP not giving a fuck about political capital is because they have a much firmer grasp on how to actually manipulate it, to effectively “produce” more capital, while Democrats and technocratic wonks think of it as a finite resource you can only push so far or expend but so much of before you run out.
Or maybe the people we keep electing are themselves ideological actors favoring these positions
Like this is part of the problem. Y’all keep talking about this as if democratic leaders are only passive managers*, chained to the whims of a turbulent land, instead of having actual ideological actors themselves among the party who favor these positions.
*this is a somewhat complicated thing as often times when it comes to progressive movements the last few decades have seen the party leadership be passive when it comes to enacting change.
Arguably, this could be explained with the understanding that Democratic leadership is, in many ways, lower case c conservative and only moves forward on an issue once American society has adopted it as the status quo; for example LGBT rights being left primarily to activists fighting in lawsuits instead of any real legislative effort to affirm those rights.
That is why it isn't an appreciable thing to worry about. It's made up!
The GOPs enjoy a status quo which is to their desire, with the support of that large rural minority. What progressives want is to fundamentally change the US, and the GOP can just say "nope!" and that's about it a lot of the time.
You could theoretically trade something the GOP wants that it doesn't have, like say okay we'll have single payer healthcare but we'll ban abortions federally... Like you'd probably get that trade. But you can't actually offer that because it's hideous to contemplate. In a system designed for it to be hard to change things, the side that enjoys a natural advantage due to stuff like the electoral college and the increased value of rural votes, plus already has their vision closer to the status quo, is always going to look like winners because... They are winning. So the Dems have limited political capital; they're always at a disadvantage in the trade.
Case in point, the past decade of leadership by mitch McConell wherein he has engaged in levels of ethical contortionalism that ~were it actual human anatomy~ would be assumed to be an optical illusion or some form of stage magic.
I think that we're overlooking the fact that the right has spent years literally investing in a political media machine with many nationally syndicated outlets, a massive cable news outlet and holding corporations capable of buying out local affiliates in order to generate their capital.
The Democrats have done... none of that. And instead try to play within that ecosystem instead of trying to counter it.
A party who used to be the party of the New Deal and the Great Society and the Civil Rights Act.
The party used to be able to accomplish all these important progressive improvements of the 20th century, and then somewhere around the 1970s and 1980s just... stopped, and allowed the GOP to basically set the stage for what is politically feasible in the United States domestic and foreign policy. For christ's sake, our ostensible nominee for the executive this year voted for the Iraq War! Despite having nothing to do with the 9/11 attacks, despite all the clear to anyone paying attention bullshit of the Bush administration.
They. Have. To. Do. Better.
And they won't so long as we keep making excuse after excuse after excuse for some of the most powerful goddamn people in this country.
Except those of us in the firing line don't get the luxury of this stuff not hitting us. There is a reason why a contingent of the Dems is always pushing for more, and its because the status quo is directly dangerous to us. Not in a nebulous not feeling comfortable way, but in a down on the ground being beaten/shot/killed sort of way.
Thats the reality for some of the posters here, please try to keep that in mind when some of us criticise liberals. Its not that we don't believe that you want to help, its just that the help offered by liberals is very frequently just a drop out of the very large bucket that the conservatives and dominionists heap on us.
Not really in this case. The Democrats aren't promising to be a better hegemon because they are reactive, they are promising to be a better hegemon because that's what they want to be. America, as a political entity, is pretty happy with it's hegemony. Especially the american domestic political sphere in general. And the parts that aren't mostly look like Trump or some kind of left- or right-wing isolationism.
Biden made a foreign policy statement. Some of us criticized it. Some countered that it didn't matter. Others offered a round about quasi-defense of Biden based on perceptions of the American electorate and notions of political capital, and so we fell into the current boring rabbit hole that has little to do with foreign policy.
One poster earlier said this was a non-issue because voters don't care much about this. That may be true, but what bearing does that have on the discussion in this thread? It's a foreign policy thread, not an election thread or a political science thread. We're going to discuss foreign policy here regardless of whether America writ large cares about it; that's the point.
It was the 1960s actually. It took awhile to make itself felt in all corners though. Till the early 90s really in Congress. And the reason is the Civil Rights era happened and fundamentally reshaped american politics.
The Obama example is again illustrative. We know from basically all the behind the scenes reporting that Obama and his people fucking hated Netanyahu. Which is unsurprising given what he was up to. But their ability to actually do anything about that was extremely limited. Because in the end politicians are beholden to various power players within their political system. Including, in democracies, their voters. And picking a fight with Israel is just not popular with any of those groups.
And again, Obama wasn't trying to do anything radical in the slightest re: the US-Israel relationship. But even that was out of reach because there is no political support for it among any major interests in US politics and you need political support to get shit done in politics.
Kinder and Gentler... aside from, you know, the drone bombings. Democrats still really like their middle east drone bombings as a method of dealing with potential harmful actors.
And then when the collateral damage gets to be too much, instead of going "maybe we don't kill people with drones" we instead go "Why don't we make a sword missile instead."
https://www.popularmechanics.com/military/weapons/a30175425/cia-blade-missile/
Never forget the goddamn sword missile.
It is very difficult, in my experience, to translate those ideals into foreign
policy prescriptions for the United States government. So instead the left tries to tweak liberal internationalism to make it less crappy, or gives up and turns toward isolationism.
I've personally sort of given up trying to imagine a socialist foreign policy for Washington and generally just think in terms of harm reduction at this point.
We should not be selling military tech to anyone imo especially since there is a ton of self dealing going on in that space.
Of course this might the operators of such missiles more likely to take whacks at targets all willy nilly
https://www.paypal.me/hobnailtaylor
Amended for US Foreign Policy preference
EDIT: In a way it's both amazing and yet totally predictable that our takeaway from Vietnam wasn't "maybe massive swaths of death and destruction are bad" but "Our soldiers dying is bad PR." So we just keep figuring out ways to keep the death and destruction without the "putting US lives at risk" part, and then being very confused when it turns out the death and destruction just makes people want to fight you more.
What you are missing, Lanz, is that the world is not static and that there are now other powers that, while unable to throw around the total fuck-you we are capable of, can easily fill in comparatively small gaps like the Israeli arms budget.
China used to be a nuclear-armed backwater unable to feed its own people, they weren't exactly going to be able to replace whatever foreign aid the US decided to cut off. Now they can, and the hell of it is that because they're an authoritarian hellhole they can be relied on to keep doing it in a way that no democratic nation can. China will turn a blind eye to outright Israeli genocide of Palestinians because, firstly, they don't really care, and secondly, China is guilty of genocide too.
Or we can try to keep some sort of hand on the tiller. I'll take that option, even if it leaves us dirty.
Well different political parties with different bases have different abilities to support different policies.
As an example of things Democrats can do but Republican's cannot is to work on anti-racism and pro-women initiatives. If Republicans do this they lose their base. Democrats don't trust them to do this anyway. They gain nothing and lose everything.
The difference here is that this is very much a situation where the Democratic party is split and there isn't much we can do about it in the short term. Well except for what Biden said he was going to do. Which was open up a US consulate in East Jerusalem specifically to benefit Palestinians.
What is happening here is that you're falling for that conservative media construction that you so decry. They reported that Biden wasn't going to move the embassy in big bold letters at the top and hid what he was actually going to do, which is a positive thing that is receiving negative press in Israel, down at the bottom of the article. The full context of the quotes is lost because controversy drives eyeballs and splitting democrats creates controversy.
I mean I really doubt China gives a shit about the latter. They probably find them a great distraction from their own bullshit tbh?