Originally published June 20, 2006 for the Center for American Progress
Can liberals develop a more vigorous foreign policy that will resonate with American voters? Today the Center for American Progress hosted a panel to discuss that question.
The panel centered its comments on The Good Fight, a newly released book by Peter Beinart, editor-at-large of The New Republic and fellow at the Brookings Institution. William Kristol, editor of The Weekly Standard, and Jeffrey Goldberg, Washington correspondent for The New Yorker, joined Beinart on the panel. Lawrence Korb, senior fellow at the Center for American Progress, moderated.
In Beinart’s analysis, liberals are able to debate particular policies but are less successful than conservatives at articulating first principles. By better understanding the history of liberal foreign policy, he believes that a “liberal story of how you protect America and make a better world” can be told.
The key to creating a liberal story in today’s global environment is to emphasize that “what happens inside other countries can threaten America,” and, according to Beinart, “America cannot do it alone.” We have neglected a legacy of building legitimacy through strong international institutions, leading to suspicion and distrust of America’s intentions. “Critical to American power,” Beinart said, “is American legitimacy.” This legitimate power is not inherent to our country, he argued, but the result of our own constant struggle to build a more democratic society. When we claim to have crossed a “democratic finish line,” said Beinart, where we hold other countries to increasingly stringent democratic standards while allowing our own to relax, our global legitimacy is threatened.
Beinart concluded by presenting two principles for a strong liberal foreign policy. First, legitimacy is power and “international institutions are the vehicles for making American power legitimate.” Through strong institutions, governments can be held to a higher standard. Second, “economic opportunity is key to the spread of freedom.” People turn away from democracy for social and economic reasons, and understanding those reasons is important in moving towards democratic governance.
Kristol, in response, noted the similarities he saw between Beinart’s ideas and the neoconservative movement. He also questioned the relevance of principles. “At the end of the day,” he said, “foreign policy is about real choices in the real world.” Using specific examples, he looked at recent U.S. history and concluded that it is better to “err on the side of action instead of inaction” because often there is not enough time to fit threats into an intellectual framework. For Kristol, our national interest comes first. “Legitimacy,” he said, “is helpful to power, but power is power.”
Goldberg added a perspective on the domestic and electoral implications of a stronger liberal foreign policy. He emphasized how important it is “to meet the American people where they are.” After traveling the country researching Democratic politicians in conservative states, Goldberg said that a lot of frustration with American foreign policy stems from the execution rather than the basic idea. The biggest danger to foreign policy of any ideology, he said, is from “world fatigue” and isolationist backlash.
The panelists agreed that with the international character of the threats facing our country, the costs of a withdrawn United States could be substantial. Beinart’s belief is that a stronger liberal foreign policy can quell backlash and strengthen America at home and abroad.
