In Search of a Common Ground for Discussion About America’s Vision

The previous characteristics of the political terms “liberal” and “conservative” were designed to sketch out the current cultural political boundaries that might frame our future discussion of America’s vision.

A fresh discussion of a new vision for America must begin somewhere in between these boundaries Otherwise we become deadlocked in ideological debates and the kind of rhetoric that has done little to advance our democracy or empower our citizens. We need to move forward!

I realize these two terms, liberal and conservative, do not exhaust the lexicon of current politics. Even the growing number of registered “independents” would not find themselves agreeing among one another on issues of foreign policy, human rights, the environment, etc. So let us say there are conservative and liberal independents. The key point is that our discussion will require that we navigate the vast area in between the far right and the far left. These extremes are the boundaries to be avoided for those who still wish to participate in this process of visioning the future of our democracy. Naturally these boundaries are only snap shots of an evolving social/political landscape. We need to find more points of agreement than disagreement around which we can form a new consensus for our fledging democracy.

The following reflections are designed to focus more sharply on the current ideological terrain of neoliberals (Wilson forward) and neoconservatives (Reagan forward). Again, the purpose is to provide some historical perspective and thus to better understand which issues will require our most serious attention and also where we might find our common ground.

These thoughts were prompted by the publication of Francis Fukuyana’s new book, “America at the Crossroads,” Yale Press, 2006. The shifts he is making from his previous more orthodox neoconservative view are important since they open a wider field for creating an emerging consensus about the need to revitalize our basic values and polities as a leading democracy. Also, since it is frequently argued that neoconservatives evolved or morphed from neoliberals, let’s try to travel some of that road to see if some core principles begin to emerge that might inform the visioning process.

I have isolated three basic principles that might characterize the neoliberals.

1. International relations (U.N. multilateral agreements, etc.) depend upon a commitment to the national sovereignty of all nations. Hence policies should not be based on moral judgments about the character of any given regime. This has been basic to the doctrine of political “realism” that formed so much of the bipartisan foreign policy for the twentieth century, up until President Reagan.

2. “Social engineering” as embodied in the “New Frontier” and the “Great Society” programs needed to be tempered by the realities of scale, resources and past experience. The issues of race, urban decay, education and welfare are far more complex that the many disillusioned older liberals ever expected in the days of unrestrained optimism.

3. Strengthening international law and forging a network of alliances, and active participation in the U.N. is the best foundation for justice and pace in a modern and globalized world. Again, realism requires us to recognize that the U.N. is designed to keep, not make, peace. At times, when a nation fails, and chaos reigns, the protection of human rights may require multilateral intervention, such as in Bosnia.

On the other hand, neoconservatives see these three issues from a different perspective:

1. The “moral character” of a regime does matter, and at times regime change may be necessary to protect human rights and facilitate the rise of democracies. There are “evil empires” that inhibit the innate human desire for freedom. U.S. intervention is not only justified but necessary to create a political climate for democracy, which will foster world peace.

2. All “social engineering” projects are suspect. Privatization of programs for the public good is the best solution. In principle, the less federal government the better. Government should not be taxing its citizens, since they know better how to invest their own resources.

3. The effectiveness of international law and agencies such as the U.N. to effect peace and security is in serious doubt. Internationalism threatens our national sovereignty. Since states are to be judged by their moral efficacy, they should not have equal status, as in the U.N. charter. The U.N. only encourages rogue states and threatens our national security. Overall, international laws and treaties only serve to limit our freedoms and curtail our capacity for unilateral action.

It is interesting that many former neoconservatives have begun to moderate their positions. William Kristol’s famous comment, “A neoconservative is a liberal who has been mugged by reality” has taken a new twist. The reality of our experience in Iraq has perhaps revealed the naïve acacolyptic faith of the neoconservatives, just as much as the neoliberals were tempered by the reality of the “Great Society.” So let me turn now to a potential reformulation of the above three issues as an illustration of how a new less ideologically rigid discussion might begin as we search for consensus.

1. Leadership

We all believe that America should be playing a leadership role, as the largest economic force in the industrialized world. But that leadership cannot be based on a theory of moral superiority or some exceptional status in world history. Restoring our national pride will require more humility and less hubris. Our nation can be an exceptional leader by admitting that our history of self government is a relatively short one and that we have no special privilege or divine mandate to democratize the world. Our moral character will be judged by our generosity to share our resources and help others achieve their basic human rights. We know this must be done cooperatively. Leadership takes the exceptional courage of humility. The “liberation” of other regimes is no longer a principle of our foreign policy. But neither is the relativism of “containment.” We live in a time when leadership will be expressed through persuasive collaboration and coalition building and demonstrating through generosity the power of our belief in the future.

2. Building self confidence

The litany of doubt and frustrations about the status of the “home front” is growing. The infrastructure of our social institutions – education, health and the general public is weakening. Our standings among other industrialized nations in educational attainment, quality of health care and income disparity between the wealthy and the poor (with a shrinking middle class) is shocking. Evidence for our competitive decline is clear. Our national debt is funding excessive consumerism of fewer products manufactured in the U.S. The floor is open for serious discussion, not tinkering, about our systems of education, health care, social security, etc. This must be a non partisan effort. It is not far off to say that our national security is a stake with these issues.

3. International Diplomacy

America’s renewed vision will require us to become involved in the non-unilateral solutions to the dilemma of failed states ravaged by poverty and hunger. We need to become less concerned about the semantics of the definition of genocide and lead in the strengthening of the U.N. Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide. We can rebuild confidence in America’s role to take the environment seriously and explore alternative sources of energy. Nuclear proliferation has been exacerbated by our recent actions, and we can reverse those policies. International cooperation is our best national defense.

These three issues, Leadership, National Self Confidence and International Diplomacy are just illustrations of areas in which I believe we can begin a fresh nonpartisan discussion toward shaping a new National Vision.

______________________

Note: When referring to the U.N., I include the multitude of NGOs related to the overall mission of the U.N.