Dignity promotion, and Obama’s foreign policy
March 26, 2008
Spencer Ackerman has a great article in The American Prospect taking a look at Barack Obama’s foreign policy team, and at what Obama means when he talks about ending not just the Iraq War, but the mindset that got us stuck there in the first place:
They envision a doctrine that first ends the politics of fear and then moves beyond a hollow, sloganeering “democracy promotion” agenda in favor of “dignity promotion,” to fix the conditions of misery that breed anti-Americanism and prevent liberty, justice, and prosperity from taking root. An inextricable part of that doctrine is a relentless and thorough destruction of al-Qaeda. Is this hawkish? Is this dovish? It’s both and neither — an overhaul not just of our foreign policy but of how we think about foreign policy.
The details obviously matter, but I think this is quite good, especially when judged by the standards of a typical presidential campaign’s foreign policy rhetoric, which is nine parts boasting about being the coolest country in the history of the world ever (*), and one part lies (cf. George Bush’s expressed belief in being a “humble nation” opposed to nation-building).
Daniel Larison at The American Conservative misses the point almost completely by arguing that Obama’s foreign policy would be more meddlesome than that of Mr. Bush:
Certainly, the idea that it is the U.S. government’s job to promote “dignity,” which is potentially even more nebulous and manipulable a concept than democracy, can lead to an endless number of pledges of support and funding. It represents not so much a recognition that democracy promotion is inherently flawed, destabilising and counterproductive as it does a belief that Mr. Bush and company have been too limited in their willingness to intervene in other countries at every level.
The thing is, it’s not possible to “promote democracy” in another country in any non-trivial way without some kind of pseudo-colonial intervention. We’re all Westphalians at heart, so the zeal with which policy-makers in both parties rhetorically agreed to take up the white man’s burden in the late 1990s was cause for more than a little unease. In the aftermath of Iraq, a rethinking of this paradigm is clearly necessary.
No matter how many times you tell people that it’s for their own good, they stubbornly refuse to appreciate it when you declare war on them.
But “promoting dignity” doesn’t require this sort of thing. It just requires that you treat people with decency and respect, and stop patronizing them. The rest you can deal with later.
(*) Not that I disagree, but it’s rather ungentlemanly to keep banging on about it. Plus, if I had been born someplace else, I would have a different opinion, so it’s not surprising that foreigners react badly to this sort of thing. George Bush has been particularly stupid about figuring this out, with his continuous and petulant demands that people “must” do this, and “understand” that.
March 26th, 2008 at 11:36 pm
The candidate’s position still seems very unclear to me. I like his promise to exterminate alqeada, but this seems like one of those mandatory statements all must make. I don’t see anything to suggest he’d actually do much aside from “retreat” from Iraq. Further, how can one promote dignity? Dignity can only originate from within one’s self, or I suppose, one’s country. How is it different to say “have our democracy, you need it.” or “here, have your dignity, we’ll grant it.” Are not both equally condescending?
My goal isn’t to be snarky here, but rather to request that the candidate move on from a discussion of “Hope” and crap like that to “here’s exactly what I’d do.” I’m sure you’ll have already read MC Cain’s speech on foriegn policy. Since obama has given no such speech that I’ve heard, how are we to compare?
Finally, doesn’t it make you nervous that we are hearing about obama’s team? What the heck is up with that? Let a man apeak for himself.
March 27th, 2008 at 9:11 am
Patrick, thanks for the comments.
I, too, think “dignity promotion” is an inapt phrase, chosen only for its contrast with “democracy promotion”. The sense is more “treat people with dignity”, than “grant them dignity”. Do unto others, love your neighbor as yourself, etc.
On foreign policy, there are definite “rules” about what candidates can and can’t say (”all options on the table”, “don’t want to talk about hypotheticals”), and while they are there for mostly good reasons (you don’t want a candidate essentially pledging American honor to act in a particular way based on extemporaneous rhetoric or white papers cooked up by graduate students volunteering on the campaign). I think Obama has gone much further than most candidates in talking about his reasoning, how he’ll approach crises, what he sees as important, etc. (McCain has done this, too). A key excerpt from the article:
As a larger point, I think the meme that Obama is about substanceless “hope” is unsupported by the facts. He’s written (himself, not a ghost-writer) two books, one of which is almost exclusively about political ideas. His campaign is stuffed with position papers and policy proposals on every imaginable topic (he is a Democrat, after all). “Hope” and re-engagement with the political system is a framework around which he’s advancing these arguments, but it’s not the argument itself.
March 29th, 2008 at 2:58 pm
Ok I have 2 questions first why are we supposed to treat murderers and thugs with dignity and respect? All they understand is force.
2nd what exactly are OBama’s political Ideas? All I’ve ever heard or seen from him is that Government is the solution for everything. I’m sure you know what Ideaology that is S-O-C-I-A-L-I-S-I-M.