Ms. Ocasio-Cortez is already ahead of this game. Her profession of ignorance on the "Israel-Palestine conflict" is not remotely anything like ignorance. It's just the usual obeisance on this particular issue that Democratic candidates for Congress make to the hard Zionist core of the party, which compels its left wing to shut up and behave if it wants campaign dollars and access to the pro-Israel party line in the U.S. media. This enormous weakness at the core of the party establishment is one of the big reasons the American people can't get loose of the enormous power Israel has acquired to exercise an intellectual censorship and a veto power over our foreign policy not only with respect to Palestine but across the whole Middle East. On this score anyway, the Republicans and Democrats are both each other's echo chambers. Occasionally, of course, leaders like Jimmy Carter, Barack Obama and John Kerry go off the reservation, but the consensus builders at the liberal think tanks always manage to clip their wings. The real lecture here should be that on this issue, anyway, the American people need a watershed moment to free our politics of this slavery to one nation and its fanatical adherents.
2
Nope. Just like no halfway crooks, no halfway isolationists. You can't defend human rights and be beat all your swords into plowshares. Hopefully, none of the Democrats listen to this advice for now. The policies mentioned here might be popular with the base, but it is the quickest way to push centrists (such as myself) back to the GOP. (not right now of course, that would be just silly. We will all vote for Stalin if we have to in'18 and '20). But in a decade out or so, if (and it's a big "if") the GOP gets its act together (i.e. a McCain/Kasich/Clintonish direction), this could be the thing pushing newly minted Democrats back out. No one wants MyLai massacres, but even Bernie doesn't call himself a passivist. My only regret in supporting Obama was always his letting Assad kill all the innocent people in Syria (which then emboldens Russia to steal our election). If the author's preferred foreign policy is letting the Taliban behead little girls, letting Rwanda and Darfur repeat endlessly, letting Russia and China uphold Trump-style dictatorships, withdrawing troops immediately from everywhere, then you lose citizens who want the military to be useful as the good force it necessarily needs to be. So, how about a different Wilsonian policy for young Ocasia to learn: one with more emphasis on multilateral peacekeeping? Why don't we send troops to UN missions again such as in Congo for example? Don't the baby blue helmets make us feel more warm and fuzzy as we kill bad guys?
3
By lessening our footprint in the world all we do is enable the autocrats and totalitarians free reign over the rest of the world. Such sadly has often been the default position of leftists. The world is a dangerous place especially now that the post-WW2 settlement is breaking down.
Yes, we do need to reorganize our military more efficiently. There is a mind numbing amount of waste and needless bureaucracy. But much of this is due to political compromises that sometimes make the defense budget look like a giant jobs bill.
I have worked for a defense Department think tank and saw the waste and stupidity first hand. There were many times that I was stunned by it. But to reduce our presence is so blindingly simple minded that it must be pushed against or the Crimea takeover , the Ukrainian intervention, the mass jailing of Moslems in China will only be a first step to an even deeper darkness.
2
Well, I'm just extremely gratified that this has been published in the NYT and the US. I agree with all of it. If you extraordinarily render and waterboard me, I'll become an American, run for office in the States and help make this program become reality. (Not true, and bad joke. Sorry.)
1
I rarely read a piece in the NYT that l disagree with as much as this one.
At only 242 years old, the US is young, and although we have experienced some great early success, the experiment we call democracy with capitalism is inextricably intertwined with a stratospheric increase in technological advancement.
100 years ago, China was a joke and a colony. 50 years later, it became nuclear power. Today it is the most rapidly developing economy in the world, WITHOUT democratic capitalism.
That was fast.
China, India, Persia (Iran), Egypt, Turkey, and the traditional European powers, including Russia, are important waypoints to understanding how to work with the jostling powers and competing interests in this century.
The US is less than 5% of the world's population. STOP developing foreign policy based only on our country's internal politics.
Don't be stupid, Dems. Don't be stupid.
2
Once again, Israel is casually mentioned as a cause celeb that the left needs to address for its so called human rights abuses. A cursory examination of the web sites of Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch lists many countries where there are gross human rights abuses including the United States. Israel does not even make the list. Yet Israel is almost always in the forefront of the left's purported quest for justice in the world. If the left wants to remain a credible champion for stamping out prejudice, it needs to look itself in the mirror.
1
"While Republicans and moderate Democrats have a host of think tanks pushing interventionism, no corporation or billionaire has yet decided to fund a left-wing foreign policy think tank to which politicians could turn for advice."
Hey, the Times is my favorite news source, but would you please stop citing biased think tanks all the time? Or could you at least precede their lofty names with a qualifying phrase, like "the right-wing Cato Institute" or some such? Non-militarists don't need a think tank to give them advice.
Senator Jackson would turn over in his grave if he read this. Can't believe this guy is part of the faculty in an institution named for one of the best minds in foreign policy. What a head in the sand approach to complicated and threatening situations in our world.
2
What does the current administration think about the South China sea? There are fishery resources and petroleum resources and navigable waters in the South China Sea. Taiwan, Philippines Japan, Vietnam, South Korea, Indonesia and Malaysia lay claim and access to those resources. I know, we can use tariffs to get them all in line.
2
Sorry, but don't confuse your confusion with those of candidates on the left. The "great" minds of American diplomacy have really botched things. Here we are decades into pointless wars. Their silence is them thinking seriously about what the experts got so severely wrong. And when you get things that wrong, lots of people die. Lots of people.
2
Sorry! It's not foreign policy that can win elections. Ask Trump! He won because he voiced what the people wanted to hear and promised them that he would get it done. We know now they were just lies. He promised he would get the ' best people ' to do jobs. Yes, he found the best ignorant crooks for his administration. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez need not know foreign policy but she can sure pick a great, experienced foreign policy wonk. Maybe Mr. Bessner, an expert on foreign policy can hel[p her.
1
Professor Bessner,
Nicely said!
Dahveed
1
The South-China Sea?
1. It is tremendously big.
2. It is tremendously wet.
5
Baloney. In this attack-dog atmosphere of politics, the Left should play its cards close to their chest/breast. When you get down to the last few days of the campaign, after the trolls and hackers have little time to be divisive, make your points calmly and clearly. Those that want to listen, will... those that won't, will not have time to spew their venom.
2
A foreign policy that criticizes Israel for human rights abuses but doesn’t mention the underlying conflict or the murderous intentions of Hamas or Hezbollah or Iran’s role in fomenting terrorism all through the Middle East, that’s not a policy. It’s a tired talking point of people who may not believe that Israel should be allowed to defend itself as every country is entitled to. At best that is born of ignorance. At worst ( think Jeremy Corbin) III is blatant anti-semitism.
6
It is important for the rising left to be better versed on foreign policy issues if we expect members of this group to make educated decisions when they cast votes.
However, the idea that the left and the right in the US ought to have substantially different ideas on foreign policy is a dangerous one, for much the same reason that our current national security establishment (and so many in the US state department) fret about Trump: Foreign powers expect the US to behave in a consistent way, and to be reliable when making promises, regardless of which party is in power. That means that while the strategy and tactics might differ for the left and the right, the goal for both the left and the right should be essentially the same.
2
Bessner's vision is all form, no substance. How about some actual issues? Such as:
--Justice for Palestine
--Reparations for our neo-colonial victims, esp. in Central America
--Defensive cyber-warfare
--de-nuclearization
--development aid for sustainable energy transformation in proportion to our historic CO2 emissions
1
Scoop Jackson, the quintessential Democrat hawk, must be spinning in his grave over Daniel Bessner's proposals !
The premise here is wrong. The 'left' is ahead simply by not being best buddies with despot murderers. At some distant date, a more nuanced policy may be required. But for right now, the bar is so low - no need to grab a pole to jump over it.
2
I was wondering of can start thinking about our people who are in the midst of a serious crisies in the opioid belt in midwest and other places first before working on China and Syria!
We need our citizens alive first so they can be converted to vote these super leftists into Congress!
I think you missed this part;
“It is unconscionable that the United States spends so much on its military while inequality grows and social programs are underfunded.”
The condescension inherent in the headline and article are stunning and an embarrassment to the Times. We’ve had dentists and exterminators as senior House leaders in recent years, but questions about ability merit an article when the headline can be about a Latina woman. When will this bias finally be over?
6
@Jane Dingman
Jane Dingman, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez isn't being treated like a unicorn just because she is Latina, but because she is willing to use the word "socialist" to describe herself, and more importantly, because she is 28 years old. Twenty-eight years old. Let that sink in for a moment.
To put things in perspective, at that age, if she had chosen to study medicine instead of pursuing a political career, she would still be a trainee in a teaching hospital, likely with more senior trainees ranking between her and fully licensed physicians.
Ocasio-Cortez is instead headed to congress after defeating a 20+ year incumbent in the primary. Can you remember someone so young ever doing this in New York in your lifetime?
3
Yes! The left must do this, otherwise there is a vacuum that the right wing fills up.
During the 2016 election, I found it dismaying that Bernie Sanders could not articulate a foreign policy stance--he just changed the subject whenever asked. I could not vote for him in the primary. Hillary was a bit too hawkish for me, but at least she had something to say. That is: I will NOT vote for a presidential candidate who doesn't have something to say about foreign policy.
We have let the Republicans dominate in this area for too long. The left used to have foreign policy ideas--but it's time to develop new ones for the 21st century. And candidates who hope to rise beyond the local level need to study up.
Lefties need to educate themselves on these issues; fortunately there are lots of good resources available. Read historians and journalists. Masha Gessen has written some fantastic books about Russia. Steve Coll has a body of work on South Asia and the oil industry. China policy with murder mystery? Try "Death in the Lucky Holiday Hotel." For a brief but enlightening summary of political geography: "Prisoners of Geography."
It's not enough to be "less awful" than the Republicans. We must have something to say that indicates future vision.
6
@MaryC, YES!
1
The points from Dr. Bessner make sense, but one crucial piece is missing. A clear-eyed definition of Patriotism and National Interest. An American politician can't just campaign on what is best for people and the world in general, they need to campaign on what is good for "America" - the idea and reality of it. Every campaign to change deep rooted injustices must first wrap itself in the flag, even more so when we are talking about "National Security." While these ideas may offer a good starting point, a politician will need to spell out why each one makes "America" stronger, and our citizens safer.
2
I think the candidates on the left are correct to focus on domestic policy. Foreign policy will develop. The idea that cutting foreign military bases is an issue for new candidates is absurd. It is reasonable that the need for foreign bases follows policy development, it doesn’t drive it. That’s simply one example where approach by a candidate is more important than position. No serious candidate would ever propose we pull out of the South China Sea or give in on the right of Israeli existence. All that is required for a sensible foreign policy by congressional candidates is an open mind and commitment to human rights.
4
Sure. I agree with everything you say, except for the part about needing a foreign policy before you even take power. Trump still doesn't have a foreign policy. Ocasio-Cortez is certainly smart enough to come up with something less harmful than what the Republicans have to offer, which is nothing. And she's not running for president. She is a bright light in a dismal dawn and with people like her, with their courage to fight for what is right, not what is politically viable to the corporate oligarchs, and then we will have no problem at all. Europeans, after all, should be the model that we aspire to, they have seen the worst of human nature, like we are seeing now in our own country, and they carved out pretty good social policy out of the disaster.
4
I think the new left should give more power to congress on war, and attack the military-industrial complex with the same zeal that Reaganites attacked government social programs.
3
"Left wing power is about giving power to ordinary people". Really? Historically it's been about coercing people into collective straight jackets. Think USSR, Venezuela, Cuba. As a set of movements historically it forces inclusion, clips the wings of the innovative and creative and generally attempts to replace the market and its associated forms of democracy with big government and the managed State. Curious isn't it that the US is discovering Socialism just as the rest of the world is trying to dump it.?
3
Conflate socialism and democratic socialism?
1
I was fully prepared to disagree with this piece but found it compellingly correct. However, I just can't be comfortable having naifs like Ocasio-Cortez responsible for the safety of my family and certainly think it quite risky to suggest "Candidates and policymakers alike should educate the public about the United States’ relative safety." The bad guys are capable of doing very bad things. I don't want to be nuked by Iran or N.Korea.
4
Of course it would be nice for all candidates to be well-rounded, but please...what foreign policy bonafides is the rising (or setting) right offering? They to a person revoked perhaps the single most promising legislation (Iran Treaty) emanating out of the White House in recent year’s (second only to the ACA) that sought to make the world (including Iran and Israel) safer, solely because a Democrat President initiated it.
2
What is the reality of the two parties foreign policies in 2018?
Both are dominated by pro-war neo-cons. The Democrats are hot for military confrontation with Russia. The partisan divide is that Trump seems to prefer a conflict with Iran or perhaps China. Neither side has any interest in peace. The recent big increase in the already bloated military budget was overwhelmingly supported by Democrats as well as Republicans.
Militarism and militarist values dominate our politics and society just as spending for war dominates the Federal budget.
Perhaps if the public could see the American G.I.s fighting in Syria every night, the way we saw them on TV every night fighting in Vietnam, things would be different. Soon, anyone who speaks for peace will be branded a traitor.
People love their SS and Medicare. This is socialism. We should be smart enough to take the good and mould it to fit us. Let’s rethink labels and dogwhistles and learn to look what is behind them. Please think and analyze not just accept at face value.
1
I agree with the article - I don't like how Ocasio-Cortez is routinely picked on for wanting universal healthcare. Her views are not radical from Hillary's proposal in 1993 or Bernie's in 2016. But the right wing media loves the visual of a brown woman wanting government services to fool more people to vote Republican.
1
"Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez recently dismissed questions about the Israel-Palestine conflict by claiming she was “not the expert on geopolitics on this issue.”"
Presumably she has even less to say about Obama's failures in Ukraine and Syria, and GWBs disaster in Iraq. That Ocasio-Cortez's willful ignorance does not inspire confidence would be a generous assessment. Since we are at the topic, what IS she an expert in?
7
@Kai. Which is more important right now: the assault on women and attack on reproductive rights vs the South China Sea ?
As for well rounded people, presumably that would allude to say, Marcia Blackburn?
1
The elephant in America’s living room is the military and our militaristic posture in the world. The threats that the nat security establishment likes to emphasize, broadly described as International terrorism, are not in any real way challenged by our bloated 20th century Cold War/great power sophisticated weapons systems. If anything, the overt expression of overwhelming force merely serves as a goad to oppressed and marginalized young men (mostly) who then attack us with pipe bombs and box cutters. A more nuanced approach focused on real economic development to help put meaning into their lives would not only be cheaper, but certainly more effective.
On the other hand, in a time of exploding deficits, declining infrastructure, failing safety nets, and imminent environmental, social, and economic disaster driven by climate change, I think we could find better things to do with our national wealth than continue to outspend virtually other nation on the planet combined for the dubious distinction of having the biggest and best weapons of mass destruction (which we would still have at 1/2 the cost).
1
The military-industrial complex remains the invisible elephant in the room that no sensible ambitious politician wants to challenge. Besides broadening the viewpoint of young socialists beyond their focus on domestic issues, Bessner might also have taken the further step of identifying important skirmishes awaiting on the political horizon.
Persistent opposition to Trump since day one has come from career professionals in the imperial bureaucracy. Foreign intelligence experts quickly identified Russian meddling in the 2016 elections as signaling an ongoing mortal threat to democracy and have remained committed to rooting out this menace. Domestic law enforcement operatives quickly fell into line. And after a period of flirtation with Trump, the military also seems to be following the intelligence lead on the basis of the undeniable risks attendant to following a commander-in-chief who is an unreliable and impulsive buffoon. Thus if Trump tumbles as a consequence of his misbehavior, the national security bureaucracy collectively will rightfully claim a major degree of credit.
But after Trump falls the national security bureaucracy will want to be rewarded for its patriotism with more power, funding and secrecy and less oversight. The groundwork is already being laid for this ask via a campaign of ominous warnings about a pending surge in international cyberwarfare.
Can we respond to this increased cyberwarfare risk without being stampeded further toward a police state?
1
Dear Dan; It is so thoughtful of you to point out that this possible congresswoman has little foreign policy experience. So bless your heart for pointing this obvious issue out to the voters of the Bronx. By the way, have you written the same about almost every other congressperson? Once you suggest that this young lady should be held to standards we would think you have combed the roster of the current house to name the giants in foreign affairs. Like maybe Steve King of Iowa. Or Louis Gohmert of Texas. I know great thinkers when you see them. So do us a favor. Start by addressing the faults of the current batch of bright lights in the US House before complaining about what might be.
4
Of all the damage that President Trump has done to this country, the most serious is clearly in the arena of foreign policy. In a nuclear world (yes, there are still existential threats to the United States) he has alienated allies and embraced despots. It may take decades to repair the damage. Is the solution to put people who are willfully and pridefully ignorant of our international obligations (Bernie Sanders, Elizabeth Warren and now Ocasio-Cortez) in place to clean up the mess? Perhaps Mr. Bessner should, rather than expressing vague suggestions about re-working the policy making process, talk about the solutions the left might present to Russian aggression in Syria and Ukraine or the expanding war in Yemen? Let's try for a negotiated settlement - John Kerry tried that and failed. Bernie's go to line was that foreign policy issues are very complicated. That may be so, but it doesn't mean they should be ignored.
2
The Arab-Israeli conflicts have been excellent real world examples of the impossibility of finding decisive and simple solutions in foreign affairs. Neither side will agree that the other has any legal nor moral justification for their demands nor actions. There is no common ground for negotiations. Both see the other as demanding what they consider impossible to accept. Both believe that right is on their side and the other are existential adversaries who would and have committed atrocities against their people.
Examining the history will not support any proposition that it is more the fault of one side. Both are about even in being responsible and in believing the others have treated them unjustly.
No fair minded American politician can assert that either side are solely to blame nor are innocent victims of the other. To do so is to ignore the facts.
1
I like that Ocasio didn’t pretend to know the full story of Israel-Palestine and spoke accordingly. I believe I would trust her to legislate fairly when those issues come up. I would trust her to read up and hear out and weigh All Sides before voting. It would be nice for the Progressive Wave to have a clear foreign policy, but maybe it’s not necessary from the voters’ standpoint, so long as we know what the candidate’s values are. I would probably trust Ocasio, Bernie, and a few others in Congress to represent the pro-humanity values I hold, put people before business, but I’m very skeptical about the rest of our representatives (esp. republicans)
This country spends far too much money and time on foreign policy.
It is time for our political system to make its primary concern the welfare of the American people.
3
Actually, the left should be focused entirely on domestic policy. In the complex world of foreign affairs, bold ignorance looks like strength. Trump can (and does) babble incoherently and there is enough uncertainty to mask his incompetence. Striking a decisive tone on an issue the American public does not understand well merely creates a false dichotomy between patriotism and globalism. Don't pick a fight with the flag Republicans love to hide behind.
Stick to domestic policy. Most Americans know the rich should pay more in taxes. Most Americans know our healthcare system does not work. Most Americans know our labor market increasingly demands and rewards specialization that can only be had through increasingly expensive education (a gamble that guarantees nothing). Most Americans lack the conviction in their prejudices to actively fight social progress, whatever they may privately think about it.
Stick to domestic issues that have the most impact in the lives of most Americans, and the left will win in a landslide. Focus on foreign policy, where strong-worded nonsense sounds reasonable, and the right will win Middle America again. Decisive, powerful proclamations do not have to be true where the truth is unknowable.
Politicians on the left should (for now) say absolutely nothing about foreign policy. Let Trump make his mess. Clean it up after the election. Do not hand Republicans the election by making it about nationalism vs. globalism.
1
It is not surprising that the new progressives spend most of their time on domestic issues; domestic policy ideas are easy - they mostly consist of economic redistribution (tax the rich, increase minimum ages, increase entitlements). The hard part is in realizing that taxing the rich will never be sufficient to pay for all these benefits, and no left leaning politician will ever suggest increasing taxes for the non-rich anyway, even though that would be necessary (see, for example, Obamacare).
Foreign policy is more difficult for these politicians, since in many cases there are decades or centuries of history one needs to understand before coming to a reasonable view of the status quo, let alone before one can make reasonable suggestions on how to improve things (hence, Ms Ocasio-Cortez' admission that she cannot comment on Middle East policy).
The author of this article too offers simplistic suggestions (reduce military bases, do not support dictators, pressure allies to act in ways the left think best) and betrays a lack of nuance, certainly of the Middle East but of other issues as well.
We used to have experts in Congress like Sam Nunn and Scoop Jackson, who actually knew what they were talking about.
Now we get Alexandra.......
4
A) Domestic policy is where we need the most work because it affects the most American lives; b) Congress has oversight of foreign policy, votes on treaties and war, and controls the purse strings but presidents do most of it; and c) Ask every freshman Congress member what to do about the South China Sea, not just the social democrats and "insurgent left wing" 28-year-olds. I'm willing to bet you'll get no answers, generic answers or dumb answers from "insurgent right wing" candidates in deep red states. No neophyte member of Congress has expertise or coherent policy prescriptions for all aspects of federal government and Donald Trump proves that none is needed to get elected.
My main take-away from Bessener is the need to rein in the far-reaching powers over military and foreign policy slowly bequeathed by Congress to the Executive Branch since 9-11. This lazy and delinquent abdication by the Legislative branch may spare us the agony of watching Congress make sausage in times of national emergency, and lend itself to more efficient decision-making, but risks going down the path of autocracy and dictatorship. Disregarding Prof. Bessener's other points, I support him in this one respect.
While I instinctively discount as unreliable all characterizations of issues as left/right or conservative/liberal, etc. Here goes, just one bullet point for democrats left of Attilla the Hun:
1) Cut the Defense and Orwellian named Homeland Security budgets to their status quo ante (9/10/01) levels. Invest freed up funds in US health care, infrastructure, climate resilience, education and enhanced diplomacy and aid.
Hi,
I'm young, I'm female and I'm a Latina with very limited experience...so what else do you need to know?
Well, a lot more then that for my vote.
As a lifelong Democrat I now cringe a bit at any politician, irregardless of party, who is significantly "leaning" to either port or starboard. There's always something fuzzy about the means versus the ends.
I would agree that we Democrats need a more clear and especially unified message, not only on foreign policy but on domestic policies as well.
In a recent Jake Tapper-CNN interview Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez was not able to answer where the money would come from for her proposed federal social programs. Instead, like most politicians, she diverted to the philosophy of intent, describing how all these things would be good without having any clear comprehension of getting there in the real world.
That is simply not good enough for the national stage if Democrats want to win.
6
" No corporation or billionaire has yet decided to fund a left-wing foreign policy think tank," in The Age of Acquiescence. Deindustrialization has not come to the defense industries, and is not likely to strike the military-industrial complex that Eisenhower saw as an emerging threat. And finance capital cannot hollow out wages in that sector by investing elsewhere.
1
I think you're wrong.
The five beliefs you describe are exactly what the left does believe in and without being a foreign policy expert I would have described the left wing foreign policy exactly in those ways.
What's unsaid is that the right wing foreign policy is not based on any of those beliefs. Rather, the GOP is all about taxpayer dollars for the military industrial complex.
1
I think the one thing that needs to be done with respect to foreign policy is a very public presentation of the Pentagon and related military and intelligence budgets. Service men and women and government employees, no different from forest service workers, agriculture inspectors and others. Yes, service men and women put their lives on the line but that is the only difference. All government workers love their country. But no one is entitled to a government job and that includes the military and intelligence so we should look at where fat and redundant staff can be cut, just as we do in other federal agencies. if service is the reason people join the military and intelligence branches, then we should equalize their benefit packages to other federal workers. That would still be generous but not as much and that would be fair.
As far as policy prescriptions: not paying attention to the world is dangerous, so a careful reduction may be called for or no reduction at all. But we should debate these things openly.
3
That the military is entrenched in too many foreign countries needs review. That too much is subcontracted to greedy private companies unfairly strains the budget. What our country needs, more importantly, is for think tanks on the left or right to offer criteria for when the US needs to intervene with force, or not. If not by force, how can diplomatic tools, or sanctions, be used more persuasively? What determines when to intervene on any level, or when to remain neutral, outside of some private Administrative calls and/or non-committal Congressional votes.
However, Mr. Bessner seems unperturbed by Ms. Cortez's excessively socialistic, domestic proposals. We have incorporated many socialistic programs since Social Security began. That she concerns herself largely with her own ethnic groups is bad enough, but ignoring her call to eliminate I.C.E. completely smacks of something worse. Any country has vital interests in security, foreign policy being an aspect of that. Imagine if Ms. Cortez's aspirations for little to no border control come true. Would her next step be to prop up the Bolivar governments in South America?
The Left needs to determine their stand on foreign policy? No, the United States needs a coherent foreign policy and plan.
1
Where's the discussion on foreign aid? How about impacts on Labor? The real questions aren't just about safety but about American growth and reduction of international poverty and how it impacts American diplomacy. The Left needs to think about what's good for Americans. That means peace and prosperity throughout the world. Bessner gets some of it, but he's not there yet.
Bernie Sanders has been "energized" by Ms. Ocasio-Cortez's candidacy. He should stand erect, with bullhorn in hand, and lead the charge to a socialist America!
Like Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. said 50 years ago, we are in need of a radical revolution of values if we are to change the nation. Values will be challenged. The value of better diplomacy and leadership aiming toward a peaceful future will be weighed against the economic hardships that might come home if we actually work for peace. With thorough distribution throughout every state and in hundreds of important, powerful congressional districts, weapons makers hold hostage the good paying high tech jobs of America. If the military budget shrunk, these well distributed jobs would be at risk and the constituencies would be threatened with layoffs at the direct hands of the politicians who would cut military programs. A fair amount of the enormous Pentagon budget is backfed into America’s high technology industry and many quite wealthy cities and towns are sustained with Pentagon pay. It’s a very old strategy and one that has multiple facets. Economic hardship might befall those who have been working hard and making good money at high tech jobs that just happen be focused on national defense and it will be a tough road ahead for any politician who would ask their richest supporters to agree that cutting the best jobs in their district is for the greater good both at home and abroad.
1
I thought this was a good article. I think our foriegn policy should result in cutting the military to sane levels (about in half or less) and bringing the troops home. We could use that money and man power to rebuild our infrastructure. Our foreign policy should include cooperation and human rights not military power drone strikes and assassinations.
1
Here's a place to start--The US hasn't won a war since World War II. In large part, we're still following the cold war philosophy of "non-Democracy anywhere is a threat to democracy everywhere," yet the more dictatorships we topple, the more seem to spring up, aided in large part by American-made weapons. We need to stop feeding the military industrial complex under the pretense of saving the world and reinvest this money in infrastructure, health care, and education.
3
Obviously she does not think about it, I wonder if she knows anything about it. I know that China is building islands that are not in our best interests, nor in some other countries either. Surely she should know more than an elderly retired person. But apparently not. I know about the middle east as well, she should too.
3
Were any of these asked of anyone in teh current administration? Were any of these asked in the last GOP administration?
No.
Yes I do believe some one who is running for the office of president should be able to put for some kind of cogent ideas and knowledge of world affairs. Unfortunately it doesn't seem to matter for GOP voters unless they want to tear down an opponent.
2
There have been no lack of skilled, foreign policy thinkers on the ideological left. But Professor Bessner is right, they have not only been excluded from government but also left out of public conversations about foreign policy.
A study was done on PBS and over 80% of their foreign policy commentators were former or current governmental officials. Network TV is even worse. The result is a stiflingly narrow discussion about foreign policy.
The left has always recognized that we live in a dangerous world and the security of the United States is paramount.
But they also recognize that the future should be guided by principles of international interdependence and cooperation, rather than domination and control.
The global financial system requires cooperative management. The worsening crisis in global warming demands cooperative efforts.
The old idea of America as a single, dominant super power has simple missed opportunities for reducing nuclear arsenals, avoiding regional conflicts and wasting the American treasury on ill-advised wars and occupations.
The left has consistently called for making respect for human rights a bedrock US policy, not just a rhetorical position that applies to adversaries but never to allies.
It's wrong to think that Ms. Ocasio-Cortez must embody a full blown left foreign policy. But maybe her presence in Congress will open doors to a broader debate about foreign policy that so far has been closed to the left
5
She is a niche candidate and will never rise above that. This is the problem with the democratic party as a whole. It use to be the democratic party could bring various groups together and unite them under the cause that what was good for America and Americans would lift us all.
President Obama was able to tap into that democratic sentiment and it is why he won two terms. Ocasio represents the democratic party that pretends it is for a good cause for all but it is obvious they care only about their particular group or cause. She doesn't even care about Americans outside her little group, so of course she doesn't care about foreign policy.
10
The role of democracy is in developing doctrines and the decisions of when the great commitments and risks of war are to be decided. The implementation of policies and doctrines is best left to the executive branch with the oversight of the legislative and judicial.
The difficulties of relying upon just one branch have manifested over and over again. We have suffered and benefitted greatly when Presidents have dominated, and when the Congress has either left the President unaccountable or tried to micro-manage for political purposes. Jefferson's purchase of Louisiana from Napoleon or the foundation of West Point were not in accordance with the sympathies of most people when they were done but both turned out to be crucially decisive to our subsequent history -- and both against most of his political ideals. Johnson's expansion of the War in Vietnam along with his attempt to end poverty was done with little effort by Congress to actually confront the risks these posed and would later affect the whole country poorly.
Roosevelt exercised far too much authority than the President should have but he changed the world for the benefit of all including the U.S. with his farsighted vision. Yet, his success did lead to too little Congressional involvement in governance through the rest of the Presidents since Roosevelt died.
There are no simple solutions. Sometimes an over achiever President can do great things and sometimes an overly complacent Congress can allow bad outcomes.
@Casual Observer
Not just Congress, remember FDR’s fight with the Supreme Court.
Mr. Bessner sounds like an armchair teacher instructing his young students to go out there bravely and change the world, and then bring him back their report.
He seems clueless about the fact that his five talking points of light on foreign policy are already shared by many people on both sides of the isle.
In this way he's an exemplar of the fragmented Left, and why the Left is in now pieces and on the floor.
The neocon and neoliberal machines are all of a piece, and the global capital that feeds them knows no political party, no country borders, and no religion.
If Mr. Bessner is already pontificating on foreign policy to brand-new Ms. Ocasio-Cortez who's not even in Congress yet, he needs to be reminded that foreign policy is determined far less by party politics than it is by the flow of global money.
This flow now presents nation-states with the brutal problem of hard-to-tax flight of capital. It is eroding everyone's social safety net.
Flight of capital is part and parcel of the rentier economy now ruling the developed world. The torrent of high-finance, of debt-servicing profit money that enriches the big banks is precisely the money that moves American empire.
It is a big picture which transcends a list of neat recommendations that sound more like a term paper assignment, rather than a well thought out approach to the problem of unrestrained and dehumanized capitalism now selling debt and selling guns around the world.
oz.
3
Excellent article.
And, it should be noted that one does not have to be a leftist to want these things. There is a broad consensus across the American electorate on the very ideas presented in this article.
It is the establishment, both Democratic and Republican, which is addicted to intervention and war and the dollars it brings to politicians' constituencies. Both engage in threat inflation and the broadening of the definition "American security interest" to include basically everything happening in the world which we don't like, an excuse to send our military abroad to "show strength."
1
There is no world government to enforce any laws and no international courts with the ability to enforce any rulings. Everything that any rules based arrangement can be accomplished requires agreements between sovereign states who cooperate. This is where leftists tend to find world affairs to be loathsome and contrary to their perception of reasonable human relations. The states must be able to use military force as well as economic sanctions and moral outrage to coerce those who don't follow the rules to follow them.
We may think that it's extravagant to maintain a two war capable military on top of a nuclear missile strategic force but it's just plain necessary. We have to be able to react to warfare in the Atlantic to the Middle of Eurasia and From the Pacific to the straits of Hormuz. In addition, we have to deter any nuclear exchange from anywhere on Earth. Then we must use diplomacy and world organizations to keep the states of the world focused upon peaceful means of improving themselves.
Insurgencies and terrorism and guerrilla warfare require socio-economic as well as political and inter-cultural efforts at achieving peace. These forms of conflict are often used by state actors but they exist because of injustices and perceived injustices which if resolved eliminate those forms of conflicts.
Leftists must accept that people can be peaceful or murderous, even the same people, and that changing institutions alone will not change human nature's contrariness.
4
As a card-carrying member of the DSA, I agree that socialists need to develop a more precise approach to foreign policy, which might start with changing how we talk about geopolitics. The term “foreign policy” presupposes a nationalistic, us-vs-them, border-enforcing view of global affairs that many democratic socialists would challenge. The rise of the nation-state is inextricably tied to colonization, genocide, and the primitive accumulation of capital. For the past three centuries capital has repeatedly flaunted the borders and laws of the nation-state while labor is policed and penalized (think of the Fugituve Slave Law enforced by slave patrols; the current workings of ICE to capture and detain the undocumented). Democratic socialists would be wise to adopt global strategies of cooperation aimed at upholding human rights— both political and socioeconomic. Our partners in this effort could be governments (national, yes, but also local), NGOs and community-based organizations, and other non-state entities. As the nation-state has evolved, it’s not clear that it can guarantee the human rights of all. Or that it was ever intended to. After all, democracy was born in the city-state, not the nation.
1
Cutting back on the US's military commitments to its allies, ending the US's role as the guarantor of peace in Europe and Asia - sounds a lot like Donald J. Trump's foreign policy.
3
One more important area for improvement would be to encourage more young people - even as early as high school - to spend years in foreign countries, learn foreign languages, live with foreign families and learn what and how things are taught there. International understanding begins on the individual human level.
2
This well written article exemplifies the exact existential danger to the United States that we truly face - the rise of the far-left in our own country. And we have created this on our own through some of the mechanisms that the author points to. The "rise of socialists" comment is an immediate red flag. This sort of "thought leadership" from Universities and people like Daniel Bessner will undermine our country. Today, our Universities are allowing "Freedom of Hate" instead of "Freedom of Speech". This is brainwashing our bright minded young people and this is a true threat to our nation.The presumption that democrats favor socialism is foolhardy. That would immediately drive any and all wealthy democrats straight away from the democratic party. And then there is the lack of a definition of who are the wealthy. Of course, if no one can obtain wealth and financial freedom and leave something for their kids, they just pick up and leave the country. Finally, for many decades, geopolitical events/pressures have allowed /forced our country to be THE leader in most things. This comes with expense and terrible terrible mistakes. But please Mr. Bessner don't demonize us. Yes, we should shrink and close military bases abroad. Yes we should ensure both basic health care as well as access for everyone in our country. But after that, you are simply a dangerous academic--certainly a growing population.
5
what about the principle of non-intervention in the internal affairs of other countries, except for situations where the international community deems it necessary to curtail genocide or other severe human rights abuses?
Dr.Bessner makes many excellent points, but he ignores the main issue in US foreign policy: imperialism.
5
Dr. Bessner's well-intentioned assessment score points for being correct about the foreign-policy understands of the left and the issues that face them in learning to talk the talk.
But walking the walk is very different, and Dr. Bessner's solutions run afoul of two, very difficult points to overcome...
The first is the Constitution of the United States. That document clearly and unequivocally places foreign affairs in the hands of the President of the United States and his Executive Branch.
Most of "democratization" that he seeks falls outside of the jurisdiction of Congress, leaving that body with little other than the power of the purse or vengeful sniping from the sidelines.
The rest his proposal falls into the "coulda, woulda, shoulda" realm in which most political scientists tend to fall...The have little or no understanding of how government actually works. To put a label on the source of his troubles in this regard is fairly easy: Deep State.
The left is welcome to tilt at the windmill as long as they reliably and regularly inform The People that pipe dreams rarely succeed, particularly when faced with a bureaucracy that has at any given time a 40-year culture of uninspired leadership and more than two-hundred years of ingrained institutional inertia.
But, hey...It was a good read that spent little time attacking the Trump administration...That's progress, especially for the NY Times Opinion pages.
3
You know who's not taken seriously? The people who want to smear progressives
3
Without even addressing the merit of the recommendations in this piece, I have to say that the entire premise seems incredibly flawed. Ms. Ocasio-Cortez is running for a seat in the House. If elected, she will be 1 of 27 Representatives for New York. Why would she hastily develop a coherent foreign policy position instead of relying on the advice and information that will be available to her once she is elected?
As for the recommendation that the left must develop a coherent foreign policy strategy: FALSE. STOP. PLEASE. The United States must develop a coherent foreign policy strategy. The establishment of artificial political dichotomies on every issue is an embarrassing byproduct of the winner-take-all ugliness pageant of American politics. It probably sells to paint America as pro- and anti-Trump, but it fuels unnecessary polarization on important issues where Americans might otherwise find common ground.
A distinction for its own sake is political pageantry. It is poisonous partisanship. And it is exactly what Americans are so sick of. Ms. Ocasio-Cortez has an agenda with respect to certain things she believes will help her constituents. She should focus on those issues. She should not go out of her way and outside her wheelhouse to proclaim party beliefs in an effort to fortify a monolithic leftist worldview beyond what she knows. She is right not to answer. And she is right not to have an answer. I disagree with the premise of this article entirely.
2
Say what you will to counter the finer points, but the essence of this article is truly spot on. There is a repeated silence on foreign policy issues from the Democratic left. If they are to indeed win some kind of substantive influence, they will have to answer these questions, and with some authority. I would be disappointed, as one of their supporters, if it turned out that they either lacked the knowledge to opine or somehow erroneously thought that foreign policy does not matter. To that last point, in this globalized and highly dependent world, international affairs are crucial. As the author aptly points out, America is a hegemonic power in a very unique time. How the US navigates this particular part of the post-Cold War era will be highly relevant for its future prospects. Indeed, our country is in a domestic and INTERNATIONAL corssroads. THE DSA probably believes in improving our domestic life first to improve our ability to govern internationally, however, seeming indifferent to world affairs will not work, not even for a short while.
The other possibility is that there is disagreement within this camp about foreign policy. Perhaps some of them are for international intervention, for example, in the face of human rights abuses, and some are totally against it, expressing skepticism about past interventions that were anything but humanitarian. But each individual politician should still articulate his or her foreign policy viewpoints at the very least.
1
Why are we using this term "democratic socialist" like it actually means something?
3
South China Sea? I think she could use some domestic tutorials first and basic fiscal education.
6
What do most Congressional representatives think of the South China Sea? Or better still, the Strait of Hormuz?
Ocasio-Cortez hasn’t even had a chance to be sworn in yet.
How many members of Congress have maintained their careers based on their firm commitment to advance no meaningful agenda whatsoever? To say nothing of any pertinent knowledge deficits.
3
Daniel Bessner is being deceptive and sly. The debate among working Americans is not of left vs. right, but about getting by.
In North Carolina, people couldn't evacuate because, as they said to a TV reporter, they couldn’t afford the cost of gas and extra food for their families. This is where working families are.
As for Bessner’s concenr about the “perceived” foreign policy gap among the new Democratic (Liberal) candidates, help is on the way.
The NYT’s Bari Weiss reports, without a sense of irony, that GOP big donor Seth Klamer is “donating” $20 million to the Democratic Party. This morning in “Morning Joe”, Ms. Weiss said that Klamer’s allegiance switch bodes ominously for the GOP, although savvy Klamer seems to be hedging his interests
Question: what does Klamer expect for his $20 million?
Is it punishment against those Palestinians who want a homeland, or will it be an exodus from Gaza into Egypt, as Netanyahu wants. Or, sign off on the Jerusalem give away or war with Iran or, oh yes, the question of the fake islands in the South China Sea.
Perhaps, the New Democratic candidates may, in time, have a say on China’s new silk roads that are far more dangerous, in the near-term, to working people in the US and Western Europe.
2
The so called "rising left" that the right wing media keep referring to has won what? A primary! Big deal.
4
Nuclear weapons in the hands of the leaders of China, Russia, North Korea and Iran are global threats but not existential and are manageable? Based on whose analysis of the minds of these guys?
6
All of the ideas in this article are excellent, welcome and long overdue. The consensus on colossal military spending is not only immoral but ruinous. Without exception, nations that burden themselves with the cost of international dominion eventually collapse under the strain of the expense (e.g., the British Empire, the Soviet Union, Imperial Spain, etc., etc.).
Also, our endless military interventions and worldwide military operations are not only costly, but usually counterproductive. Look at what we have wrought in the Middle East, for example.
We should invest in our own society instead.
1
She is not running for president, she is running to represent the best interests of her NY district. Like the current admin has any idea about foreign policy? LOL. We need to clean the stinking garbage from our house and get all of our people cared for and rebuild our country/infrastructure, and clean up our environment now or all else is moot.
3
If you don't concern yourself with enormous issues like the South China Sea you generally should not run for Congress. Admittedly some leftists who know little and care less about international relations will do FAR LESS DAMAGE than Trump and his gang, who love to be ignorant and to spread ignorance and to break our alliances. So the Democrats here and now should run, and it would be better for America if even the ignorant Democrats win,
Sigh. In the interest of brevity (to the detriment of accuracy) the media keep saying "Socialist" when they should say "progressive" or, Lord help us, "liberal." "Socialist" means state ownership of means of production and no sane person in America holds that. We certainly already have socialized military. Socialized medicine for all would be good - I have it (Medicare) and I love it.
And how about growing up a little bit and let Ms. Ocazio-Cortes - a very impressive very young woman - have time to learn a lot more, as she just asked for.
An effective democracy requires a responsible press, not the "sensation-seeking" there is much too much of.
3
The US spends more on defense than the next 10 largest countries expenditures. It has a spying capacity that is far more sophisticated than any other country. The US foreign policy apparatus is controlled by a regime change agenda. Ultimately hoping to overthrow Putin and break the Russian Federation into small parts. The US arms industry supplies weapons everywhere. Even ISIS benefitted when the Iraq army fled the battle before Mosul leaving their weapons for ISIS to collect. Corporate sponsors running the neo con narrative on the news media are a particularly obnoxious aspect of watching the news. But the effort by politicians to make any criticism of Israel's abominable treatment of Palestinians as anti Semitism needs to be pushed back against.
5
American values and interests should be deeply rooted in the promotion of civil secular plural egalitarian democracy by weapons of mass construction aka diplomacy, education, humble humane empathetic aid to promote emotional, mental and physical health and well-being.
2
I don't understand why the writer expects the so called left to have stronger foreign policy opinions - and then in the same breadth states that the established experienced parties have long abdicated foreign policy to the executive branch.
Did I miss something? Is Ocasio-Cortez expected to wrest these policies from the executive branch now that she's been elected to her first term or has she announced she's running for president in 2020?
It seems the country has always had a sort of internal auto-pilot running foreign policy regardless of which party in in charge. The exception being the Trump administration who apparently flicked off the switch causing the "steady state" notifies us via an Op Ed that they are scrambling to grab the stick.
Pretty refreshing to hear someone admit they aren't an expert on certain matters and support to increase their expertise - rather than rolling the dice on "I know more than the generals..."
It appears that Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez was a Capitalist before she was a Democratic-Socialist:
"We seek to develop and identify literature in urban areas," the then-22-year old said of her now-defunct startup, Brook Avenue Press, in a video interview. She went on to encourage investors to support Bronx businesses, saying: "Rather than think of it as somewhere to run from, the Bronx is somewhere to invest," in an interview with the New York Daily News. Ocasio-Cortez reportedly spent around $1,000 to get her business off the ground, and further advocated for a New York City bill that would double tax deductions for new business startup costs, bringing that figure from $5,000 to $10,000. " https://www.inc.com/zoe-henry/alexandria-ocasio-cortez-surprising-entrep...
As a Capitalist she spent about $1000 to start her business. As a business owner, she wanted taxpayers to provide support to help her business be profitable or more profitable.
Ocasio-Lopez needs a job. She has chosen to try to get elected and learn on the job.
She should have come to politics with a record of success in business, or at least a record of success in something - business, nonprofit, just about anything. She should have then begun at a lower-level government job, learned and then moved to higher-level government jobs over time.
Neither NY City nor the capital of New York State nor the capital of the United States is the place for on-the-job-training.
2
The Left has always been confused about foreign policy, because it lives in a world fundamentally divorced from reality, allowing other countries to eat our supper. Americans tend every now and then to let the naifs take over the foreign policy apparatus (think Carter, HRC's "reset," etc.) and then they come to their senses, seeing the confusion of babes in toyland.
4
Ocasio-Cortez represents the continuing degradation of our political culture, now from the left. Like Trump and the Tea Party before him, the populist doesn't have to know anything. Their job is to viscerally connect with an angry segment of the electorate. Educating oneself, thinking, reasoning . . . these aren't skills that are necessary when you are a revolutionary of either the left or the right.
4
@Chris
This should have been a NYT pick!
2
We need to reconsider our alliances with countries like Saudi Arabia that actively spreads a religious ideology that easily slides into fanaticism and terrorism, or with countries like Guatemala and El Salvador that mistreat their lower classes to the point that children seek refuge in our country from their own fellow citizens and government.
I'm sorry no one in their right mind is for the abolition of Immigration and Customs enforcement. Who doesn't want, for example, to interdict heroin smuggling? No, what progressives want is responsible Immigration legislation, that understands that we need foreign workers from time to time and seasonally, and that we need to recognize that there are times when there's a genuine for asylum. This country hasn't always been good at providing it. But we are dedicated as a people to being a safe place in the world for those who need shelter from tyrants and chaotic criminal regimes.
4
I think that the author overlooks the very real possibility that the liberal foreign policy positions outlined in his article are not popular on a broad scale in his country. Ocasio-Cortez and Bernie ignore foreign policy because it is their political Achilles heel.
5
I would suggest that she is also given a deep dive course in history, especially the parts which show the human suffering resulting from communism and so-called socialism. So many of our newly emerging politicians seem to lack a strong foundation in and appreciation for what came before and what we should work hard to avoid.
5
The left since the Age of Enlightenment has held to the view that corruption in social systems not only led to injustices but international conflicts. Largely it was based on Rousseau’s hypothesis the man’s natural inclination was to live harmoniously and cooperatively together. The left became confrontational and reformist with the European revolutions beginning in 1848. The pressure to remedy inequities and injustices arising with industrialization was creating desperation and unrest. The result led to political movements and ideologies that defined international relations afterwards.
Only the most intolerant and contemptuous of human life amongst the leftist movements proved effective in foreign affairs and warfare. These were always Marxist Leninist who never perceived a human life too precious to preserve. The rest tended to want to do everything collaboratively which usually meant that their adversaries struct with the great force before they.
However, the international system instituted by the U.S. has been as successful a liberal and leftist endeavor which really has worked well. That it has not spread democracy and liberal governance around the planet is a sad truth which has caused many on the left to disparage it, it’s been a good thing at the level of relations between states.
2
The rising left needs to be smacked down. Some ideas like medicare for all deserve a hearing, but most of their ideas are bankrupt and lead to poverty and misery. We need CENTRISM not adopting Marxism under a feel good sounding name "Democratic socialism".
2
You couldn't even distinguish Marxism from Leninism, and neither can most of the people in these comments
1
I agree with every word you say, but disagree a bit with the framing. We don't need to "become experts". We mainly need to recognize the perfectly obvious fact that the so-called experts who've been running the show for 6 decades are complete idiots, and that we mainly need to carefully dismantle most of what they've built. It doesn't take experts to do a hundred-times better job than they have.
Most importantly, it doesn't take experts to articulate these points to the voters. And it doesn't require being taken seriously by all the right people to get elected. Just articulate in 2 or 3 sentences that we can and will peacefully reduce our military adventurism while remaining engaged with the world diplomatically. Don't get drawn into anything beyond that: say "everyone knows you guys have been wrong for decades, and we're not wasting any more time arguing with you", then get back to the main subject: the economy.
Some people will never agree with us--we don't need them to--let history prove them wrong, and let their tombstones read "his faith was in war".
2
If Hillary Clinton had been held accountable for her foolish, unscrupulous support of the Iraq war, Trump might not be president.
2
"Just as many Americans are fed up with the economic status quo, so too are they fed up with business as usual in foreign policy."
War means sending some of our best people and a lot of our money to kill people, always including large numbers of innocents caught in the cross fire. It means getting some of our own best people killed too, since it is never risk-free for us to go akilling.
The waste is mind boggling. The wasted human potential is even worse than the waste of money.
Killing innocents and vast waste are just not left wing, nor popular with other voters when put that way. And that is the only honest way to put it. Generals from Lee and Sherman to Smedley Butler and then to Eisenhower and Bradley have said so repeatedly, and they have very good reason to know.
They are not fed up with all of foreign policy, but with an awful lot of it, because killing and waste have come to predominate, with a strong admixture of torture and war crimes directly ordered by some really awful civilian leaders, then covered up by more.
Nobody wants us to be vulnerable or weak. Few want us to come home and try to live without the rest of the world. That is not the same as "Travel To Foreign Places, Meet Exotic People, And Kill Them," which was said in the time of Vietnam -- when leftists did develop a foreign policy, see Eugene McCarthy and Bobby Kennedy.
3
I am in general agreement with the author - the lack of progressives working for the government on international relations over the past few decades is because we find our foreign policy abhorrent and don't want to be a part of it. It is indeed time to change that.
I have one plea to this author and others who write similar articles: can we stop using Ocasio-Cortez as a punching bag? As someone positioned in a place of ignorance, even if you support her? She is nothing of the sort. To position her this way in an article espousing progressive views does not help the cause.
1
I think the views of Mr. Bessner in the matter of American Foreign Policy would be more applicable if we didn't first have to rebuild our democracy post Trump and over the bones of a useless G.O.P.
We can get to foreign policy after we figure out just what our domestic policy is and who we are, what do we believe in, what we're willing to tolerate in our leadership and what we will not tolerate. Get through that mess and then we can take on how
we're going to get along with the rest of the world,...if they'll even have us!
"Hello, I'm Uncle Sam and I'll be your waiter today. Our special today is Crow."
Some good ideas and some over simplistic ones. Draw down military, to a point, but make sure that does not include ceding the South China Sea to China, or we will lose the alliances of all the countries whose shores border it. Further the military employs talented Americans who might otherwise not be able to afford higher education, and shows them the world. Since at least the Tuskegee Airmen, the military has been a force for integration. If we downsize it, we need a new New Deal to take over those functions.
1
Maybe the left should talk to Jimmy Carter. By getting Egypt and Israel to sign the Camp David Accord, he achieved a great diplomatic solution. And he always premised his foreign policy agenda on human rights.
2
Oh, and it wouldn't hurt the Left none loudly to insist that if we're gonna go to war in some desert land like Iraq we at least get a declaration of war, and if we're gonna go fight we at least need an AUMF most times.
After posing the question "What does Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez think about the South China Sea?" Bessner raises the hope that at least the outlines of a coherent strategic vision of America and its place in the world may follow. Instead, we find a handful of general recommendations (force reductions, cuts in defense spending) unrelated to any concrete problems facing American diplomacy today. How should the United States respond to the growth of Chinese military and political influence in the Western Pacific? To asymmetrical threats from a more combative Russia? How should we manage our relationship with the European Union and United Kingdom post-Brexit? Progressive Democrats can and should have more to offer. .
2
All great in theory to expect an entering Member of Congress to be knowledgeable on these issues and start to think of well drawn out policy in these fields. But anyone who has listened to Ms. Ocasio-Cortez will know that will not likely happen anytime soon. He talk with Jake Tapper over the weekend alone revealed her to be ill informed and ignorant of the most basic issues, unable to articulate a single position on any issue that made sense. I dont have a lot of hope here.
4
I’m pretty sure that our president is no better informed on these matters.
1
Did she know where it is before the question was asked?
3
Orcenio-Cortez recently told a PBS interviewer that she didn't know "much about the Middle East" then referred to Israel as "an aggressor". The interviewer said, "are you referring to the modern state of Israel?" Cortez seemed to want to back out of the room and changed the subject.
8
In an article with a headline about the South China Sea issue, there is literally no mention of the South China Sea issue. Why use one specific issue in the title if the piece is so much broader in scope that it fails to even address the headlined issue?
2
Although Bernie Sanders did not make foreign policy the focus of his campaign, he did discuss it. The election-related problem with the proposals in this column is that they cannot be packaged into neat soundbites that will resonate with voters. Bernie Sanders has been active in foreign policy since the election, for example by introducing legislation to give Congress more oversight over the war in Yemen. Daniel Bessner is correct when he opines that Congress should be doing more, but it is a fight with human nature. It is so much easier to do nothing and let the Executive Branch handle foreign policy than to have to argue with 534 others in Congress to make policy. Also, every vote can potentially be blown up into a campaign issue, accusing the member of Congress of being weak on national security.
The president, whoever he or she may be, should do what President Obama sort of tried to do: push Congress to do its job.
2
Excellent piece and I agree entirely. The left does have intellectuals focused on foreign policy (the Institute for Policy Studies, for example) but they are indeed rare. The left can in fact seize on war weariness as a way to rein in our out of control military policy and dramatically reduce overseas deployments. But this will require winning the midterms and then the presidency. So it’s a bit chicken and egg.
1
Writing a column in the NYT is not writing for academic journals to stay in a university with graduate programs. Academic organizations, too, have human rights, equality issues. What do I mean? Your NYT article is addressing not only the college graduated Democrats and Republicans. All Americans need to know the basic human rights as well as the USA compliance with the UN human rights. Each USA state has its own human rights. Also, each state has its own Democrats and Republicans-plus a few unknown parties.
Does a Senior HS student know democracy, Right Wing? What Left Wing means? The students in The Bronx, Upper East Side and Brooklyn Heights have the same level of knowledge? I say Occasio-Cortez could teach you a few things.
In the USA, unemployment, education opportunities and enlisting? Enlisting is not mandatory. It is an individual selection. HS graduate's understanding "American hegemony?"
Sir, rights are not given. Taken. Either after a socio-political mayhem, or with dialogue. Ocasio-Cortez is coming from the right taking part of the Life School. The moment she needs to learn XYZ, she will learn. She could learn easily the diplomacy taught in (pseudo) science classes. I am sure as a Life School graduate she could teach you about economics and risk management science.
2
Briefly put, you're arguing precisely what Trumpists argued about Trump's really good genius brain.
Sorry; I like my pols to come into office already knowing stuff. And given that most progressives strongly opposed TPP, she should at the very least know where the South China Sea is.
1
The Professor states that the wars in Vietnam and Iraq were policy blunders. But that's a socialist view.
Were they not great successes for the military-industrial complex? True, they killed hundreds of thousands of people, but let's remember that trillions were made by those aligned with the State.
Professor Bessner's foreign policy views - socialist though they are - Sure Sound Good. They give depth to the one-dimensional leftist critique stuck on domestic justice.
But the Professor's policy prescriptions are academic, and that puts voters to sleep. They need crafting into winning talking points - maybe something that will fit on a hat.
We can learn from Trump. He had two smart ideas that pulled people in: disentanglement from foreign adventures and running against the Deep State.
The professor's foreign policy implies no more foreign wars and people will vote for that over the Republicans forever wars.
We should also commandeer Trump's "Deep State". This, whatever it is, gets people riled up and turned-out. It just needs redefining away from the nebulous "liberal elite" and nailed down into something very real: the military-industrial complex.
The military-industrial complex really is a Deep State that's steadily been corroding our values and taking our money for decades. They've even captured our flag and we need to get that back.
Let's deploy the Professor's newly humane foreign policy framework and take a run at the military-industrial complex.
1
Gee, and the right wing, including our current President thinks what? Is Mr. Bessner suggesting Ms. Ocasio-Cortez ignorance and lack of a comprehensive plan is worse than Mr. Trump's ignorance and lack of a comprehensive plan, her being all left-wing and all? Is Mr. Bessner willing to cut her some slack seeing how she does not have the foreign intelligence community behind her, unlike Mr. Trump?
44
@gratis -- "Unlike Mr. Trump."
Well we also had the cackling fiend of Libya, "We came, we saw, he died." That was the status quo offered.
There is a lot to fix. It is not just Mr. Trump. In fact, he's been co-opted on that by the evils of past administrations, like Bolton.
This isn't to defend Trump lies nor his selling out to neocons.
It is to say that getting rid of him is NOT getting rid of our problem.
In fact, the alternative we had before was even more of the same problem, with the same crew of neocon supporters and hawkish Democrats too.
We must be rid of the problem, as well as Trump. It is not enough to let the problem back into power, but in hands even more bloody and effective at killing.
4
@gratis You're suggesting we should "cut her some slack" because Republicans did the same for Trump? You see where that's gotten us, right?
1
@gratis He has a plan, and I bet is not ignorant, now his plan is something you don't support, so be it. She is quite ignorant for a human being, not to mention someone who wants to be in congress.
2
As a life long democrat I must say that this move to the left is not the answer for democrats or the country. We have one extremist right party in power. We do not need another. Back to the center.
5
Ya. The author claims that the goal of the (socialist) left is to “give power to the people”: eg the power to take stuff from other people — people who work hard and earn it. How many examples does it take to show that socialism never works?! As Maggie Thatcher said, the problem with socialism is that eventually you run out of other people’s money.
4
It's a shame the writer didn't mention the one institution in New York that can offer lessons on foreign policy: the UN. It's right on the East River, in midtown, where 193 countries discuss their national points of view on the world's most pressing problems. Today, for example, the US held a meeting in the Security Council accusing Russia of influencing a report by a UN panel of experts regarding violations of sanctions against North Korea.
@Dulcie Leimbach The UN doesn't have any lessons to offer on foreign policy.
The UN can give lessons on what not to do. That's their expertise
3
This article is the same old tired argument that the establishment and their friends like the NY Times likes to dig up, dust off and use to falsely portray the "left" as "not strong" on foreign policy. However, the real facts are that both corporate controlled D and R parties have spent trillions of dollars on wars and weapons for the last 30 years while deliberately ignoring the catastrophes within our own country....climate change, education, infrastructure, the destruction of the working class, the outrageous ripoff of the health insurance and big pharma industries - I could go down the list, but you get the picture.
So I say bring on the "left"...it's exactly what is needed!
2
What would have been interesting is a compare and contrast piece about what today's Conservatives believe. If anything.
I thought Obama was perhaps overly cautious, but at least his view was comprehensible and fairly well articulated. But to write such an article while the Conservatives who have all the power but have no idea of what their own world view looks like at all seem absurd.
What does Ocasio-Cortez think? Heck, what does my 5 time GOP Congress man and ex-militrary Rep Mike Coffman think? I have absolutely no idea.
The headline of this article is a classic NYT delegitimizing move of the progressive left. It is meant to send the message that these progressives are clueless and shouldn't be trusted or taken seriously. Never mind that there are tons of mainstream candidates of each party who know as little or less about foreign affairs, but the Times doesn't have headlines to point that out about about each of them.
The article itself is fairer but still not fair. It outlines a reasonable vision that "the new left" may try to develop on foreign policy. However, it is unreasonable to ask that as a condition for being taken seriously, which it basically does.
8
@Sandeep Prasada
Agreed!
I was pretty upset to see their recent article bashing union retirement plans as well. It seemed designed to generate anger and resentment toward the base of the left - organized labor.
Doesn’t matter since Pelosi will have her muzzled toot suite.
1
"We can bring our troops home and cut the military budget because the United States doesn’t face any serious external challengers"
That's where I stopped reading this article. Laughable.
8
Why does Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez pretend to speak as an expert about things she knows nothing about - would be a more apropos title for this opinion piece. Whether the topic is paying for universal healthcare or Israel - AOC has repeatedly demonstrated that she knows very little yet acts like she does when asked.
7
The author wants to reduce the American military footprint, but increase international cooperation on multiple issues. Why would the Saudis want to cooperate with America if it were quite clear that the American security umbrella would no-longer cover them? One of the reasons you can nudge these powers is that they rely on American protection.
Is the US to reduce its presence in Japan? Yes, that will surely impel the Japanese government to cooperate more with American demands. Its not as if Japan has one of the largest powers on earth next door that is nursing a grudge...oh wait that would the People's Republic of China.
You can argue that the US military budget is inflated, it probably is, everything the government does is. But, what this ignores is the enormous benefit that is accrued by having a more secure world under Pax Americana. There is no reason why absent a vigorous US Navy, that important shipping routes would become prey to pirates or even other states again.
Prior to WW2, American foreign policy could be best described as sitting in the parlor with a loaded shotgun daring anyone to enter. It didn't work, and it will never work. You must be vigorous abroad and ready to confront threats before they become problems later down the line.
Those who oppose the general foreign policy consensus have been marginalized for a reason, they are idealists in an arena that has no room for such things.
The strong do what they can, and the weak suffer what they must.
6
"This means taking some of the power away from the executive and, especially, White House institutions like the National Security Council and returning it to the hands of Congress."
This is the kind of statement, well meaning, but indicative of someone who is more of an academic than a real or former player in the government. Congressmen barely have time to even tend to their own nests given their schedules much less throw things down to rush to NSC types of meetings. It would take a fundamental culture shift to make this happen, and given it’s a legislative body in the first place, its numbers and schedules and awkwardness would greatly hamper spontaneous decision-making and grind down long-term in interminable squabbling. They would of necessity wind up creating an appointed and select body of officials or a congressional bureaucracy, or some combo of the above, to take care of this function, and why would that body be any better or less subject to caprice or politics or idiocy than a body under the Exec Branch umbrella? Answer: it wouldn't.
3
History has taught us that effective foreign policy cannot be driven by virtuous principles alone. It is a game played by rules that cannot be dictated by a single country, including our mighty one, no matter how much we would like to believe the opposite. My concern is two-fold. First, it is the neglect and ignorance of foreign policy by the new democratic wave as the author suggests, and second is the author’s list of recommendations which itself seems to entirely neglect or ignore our era’s historical and current realities.
4
A democratic socialist left with a "peacenik" foreign policy will find itself pulverized in the national election of 2020. Can't normal politicians give us affordable health-care & college tuition? Don't most Americans want job security? Why must we employ the fringes for the things we all want? Why give Trump more red-meat?
5
In developing an effective alternative to the "cold-warrior-Rambotoid" foreign policy that has cast its long, seemingly permanent shadow over our postwar, postcolonial times, what ought to be paramount in the left's collective consciousness is Hermann Göring's succinct, incisive explanation of why nations go to war:
"... [T]he people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the peacemakers for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same in any country."
"socialism. noun. an economic theory or system in which the means of production, distribution, and exchange are owned by the community collectively, usually through the state."
Let's not change the meaning of words to fit someone's narrative. Mr. Bessner raises good points about what American, not republican or democratic, foreign policy should be, but slurs democrats with a reference to something that doesn't exist here. His otherwise cogent discussion trips over its own feet by the sloppy use of terms used to by republicans to make people fearful.
1
Ms Ocasio-Cortez didn't just "dismiss" a question about the Israel-Palestine conflict. She first answered it as if she was knowledgeable, but when the interviewer scratched the surface, and her answer made it increasingly apparent that she was out of her depth, that's when she claimed she was not the expert on geopolitical issues. It was less disturbing that she lacked expertise than that she pretended that she knew what she was talking about.
5
@Steve
What is recently being referred to as "the left" in the US has a set of policy positions, most of which match the policy positions held by the Labour party in the UK.
@Middleman MD
Then Ms Ocasio-Cortez should learn something about them, instead of offering responses that resemble that infamous one from Miss South Carolina. I can't take seriously anyone who fakes her way through questions.
Mr. Bessner clearly lays out a cogent argument, and the Democrats would do well to follow this blueprint, or at least something like it. It's unfortunate, however, that Ms. Ocasio-Cortez is targeted by the piece’s headline and accompanying photograph, since the article is primarily about what Democrats who have been in office over the past few decades have failed to do, most of them seasoned and most of them men.
Just because they are never asked, does not mean they don’t have a construct for our many multi-dimensional international problems and relationships.
1
I believe that one way we can all better understand the needs of our nation (and by that I mean our fellow citizens) is to end our dependence on a mono-axial political model. There is more to us than can be slotted into "left" or "right" categories.
Where can, for example, those of us who are committed to non-violence (yes, even at the national-defense level), have our political voices heard?
What does Paul Ryan think about the South China Sea? What were Republican Roy Moore's deep policy views on the subject?
Fascinating how the "oh-so-radical Left" (i.e., "moderates" to the rest of the industrialized world) is held to such an exhaustive standard for knowledge and policy (which, despite the occasional slip-up, it often lives up to), but Republicans and blowhards get a pass (in spite of their egregious lying, misinformation, and conspiracy-mongering)...
5
Daniel Bessner says ... "But when it comes to matters of war and peace and to America’s place in the world, the left is either silent or confused." It sure is comforting that the right is loud and assertive that bombs must fall somewhere; they just don't know where.
2
Leftists generally do not understand anything about economics or international commerce. They live on the surface and cant lead because they are idealists with myopic focus on their own power. They are prone to corruption and their policies will destroy America's fabric and national identity. They are self-deceived because they do not submit to God.
3
@Patrick McCord. Yes, Patrick. Which is why the GOP drove us into the Great Recession and the Dems had to pull the world out.
@Patrick McCord -- I have read the bible. It is not a treatise on "economics or international commerce."
And then as to "They live on the surface and cant lead because they are idealists with myopic focus on their own power. They are prone to corruption and their policies will destroy America's fabric and national identity. They are self-deceived because they do not submit to God" ...
surely you are speaking of Mr. Trump, no one in American history fits this better.
"The United States does not face any serious external challengers." If only this were true. Putin is rebuilding the Soviet Union, China is dominating the South China Sea, and Iran has acquired Syria and is seeking to destroy Israel. None of their leaders are trusted negotiating partners. There is no such thing as a "peace dividend".
5
@Donald Delson none of these, or even all together, do not constitute the threat of the USSR and the cold-war nuclear arms race.
It is a mistake to continue to put so much emphasis on this one young woman. A junior person from an atypical district with a limited sense of the world is better deployed on domestic issues. Following from this, while the left should not concede the foreign policy debate or accept the current national security consensus, your winning arguments are domestic ones.
While I find appealing many of your foreign policy points, beyond maintaining a vague non-interventionist posture I don't see much advantage electorally in policies that will be perceived as anti-military and at odds with the current bipartisan national security consensus, as many reasons as there may be to deplore it. Calling for dismantling the national security state, like wanting to eliminate border patrol and abolish ICE, while appealing to the hard core, will not gain you enough friends to win national or even statewide elections.
7
I applaud Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez's answer that she is “not the expert on geopolitics on this issue.” It indicates that she is open to learning about the many complex issues in the world today, and ready to listen to experts in the field. Excellent quality in a politician!
3
Ocasio-Cortez took a popular progressive position on a foreign issue without knowing squat about the situation, and was exposed, however tactfully, by a PBS TV host. The writer of this article, as well, apparently blames Israel for defending itself against violent partisans of a terrorist movement. What the left needs to do is more reading and research before concluding their principles apply equally across the board to all situations.
9
Uh, she actually said she didn't know. And was not on PBS.
1
@Robert This article has the link. On a PBS show, she reiterated a position she had already taken, and then squirmed out of elaborating further by stating she was “not the expert”.
Bessner describes American foreign policy as dominated by militarism and American hegemonic ambitions. This is very worrisome oversimplification of a very complex world. To me, his proposals sound extremely naïve and foolish. Would the world profit from a Canadian or Western European style foreign and military policy pursued the United States? I would think the result would be a lot closer to the effect of America's Interwar peace progressive foreign policy. Namely, the rise of serious predatory powers who would threaten the international system. Bessner discounts these ideas because he would appear to have very little knowledge of what is actually going on in the international system. He seems to think that a nurturing welfare state and anti-interventionism is in America's interest. Think again.
51
How’s that interventionism working for ya? Laughable.
5
@Yankelnevich do you think it's possible that an assistant professor in American foreign policy at the University of Washington’s School of International Studies might have more than, as you put it, 'very little knowledge of what is actually going on in the international system'?
2
@Yankelnevich
This is the kind of outdated thinking military people always resort to when confronted about the global system...this is not 1945, or 1965, or 1985, either. It's time to dare to rethink the global power balance, and how we can safely fit into it. It is not naive to do something besides "fight the last war".
1
The left wing of the Democratic party essentially represents goals of the FDR administration, but they must be forceful advocates for engagement with the world rather than the isolation espoused by many on the left like Bernie Sanders whose criticism international trade agreements is more reminiscent of Herbert Hoover. They need to stand solidly behind goals outlined in the Atlantic Charter, especially the right of people to determine their nation's destiny. The disengagement with foreign policy will create blunders like the belief every industrialized country offers "single" payer health care. They don't, and we need to recognize the difference. The issue is becoming self-insured through Social Security. The payment side can be single or multi payer. Many large corporations are self-insured and either pay claims directly or contract with third party administrators, Canada has a single payer system on a provincial not national level while others like Taiwan, Australia and others have a national single payer health insurance. France, German, Japan and others have a multi-payer system that looks something like Medicare Advantage with significant differences. 1. Insurance plans in those in multi payer systems must be non-profits, similar to credit unions and mutual insurance companies owned by the members. 2. They must accept all applicants and place everyone in a single risk pool. 3. The medical community must accept all insurance plans as a condition to practice medicine.
1
Very cogent piece. I like to drive my conservative friends crazy by claiming that 100 years from now historians will identify Jimmy Carter as one of America’s greatest presidents. I argue that he returned American foreign policy to the moral ambition implied by the American Story. He stopped being friends with leaders who abused their own people. Friends of America needed to respect the universal human rights of their own people. Since Carter too many occupants of the Oval Office have forgotten that lesson. The current occupant thinks no further than his own friendship with these demogogues and some calculation of a mythical, undefinable trade relationship. Meanwhile Carter’s star rises!
1
As if Trump, the “freedom caucus “ or the tea party have done any clear thinking on any of this. Her focus will be on domestic policy - she is not running for president or Secretary of State, and she is a bright woman capable of learning as needed (which is a LOT more than Trump will ever do)
2
The only foreign policy a progressive politician needs to put forth to get votes is this: Get us out and keep us out of the Middle East. Stay out of civil wars. Promise to step in if Israel is attacked in force but otherwise keep out of their affairs with their neighbors. Participate in nuclear containment through the UN but not unilaterally. Ban all US arms sales and financing to non-democratic countries. Support non-military initiatives in developing countries but only at their request.
1
This was a superb piece giving great advice on what American foreign policy should be like, but the title was very misleading and you can see below that there were a lot of people who were misled or going off on bizarre tangents that have nothing to do with what was actually said.
The moral here is that political communication is difficult enough, given that some people will insist on misunderstanding or misrepresenting your points. Don't give them ammunition with an irrelevant title.
My one substantive disagreement--some on the right are justly complaining that you link your ideas to "the socialist left". But there are some people on the right who would agree with you on most of these points, and the issue is too important to make it seem like only the socialist left opposes American militarism.
1
No one will care if she answers China Sea questions in terms of Chinatown, right? Right?
5
What does Donald Trump know about the South China Sea? The birther in Chief. He has not cracked a book(except maybe Playboy) in decades and all the history he knows is from Alex Jones and Fox TV shows like Hannity , and Fox and Friends. Do not claim these newly elected people know less about foreign policy than Ronald Reagan , George Bush or Donald Trump--they all are/were intellectual light weights and if they are qualified by republican standards to be president then I am sure Alexandria Ocasio is qualified to serve in the congress by normal standards. It does not take that long to get up to speed on these topics-- if you are willing to read and not lay in bed eating cheeseburgers and tweeting all night.
6
Superb essay, I only wish the ideas expressed here could be widely adopted by members of congress.
1
@Nancy
"Superb essay, I only wish the ideas expressed here could be widely adopted by members of congress."
You appear to be the only commenter that read past the title!
For a think tank that has consistently espoused a non-interventionist view, the author should take a look at the Cato Institute.
For example, they were against the war in Iraq from the start. And they have continually lambasted the bipartisan-approved, bloated "defense" budgets.
In addition, they are also definitely not isolationist in terms of diplomacy and trade.
2
The latest democratic congressional letter to Pompeo on the US North Korea summit is a prime example of ignorance and toeing- the-Pax-Americana line of liberals. No better are supposed progressives like Elizabeth Warren and Joe Kennedy or Bernie Sanders. The terrible paradox is that only Trump, for reasons of his deformed personality, has entertained the kind of dialogue with North Korea that both breaks with neoliberal tradition and is essential to end 70 years of dangerous and tragic hostility.
2
If they knew more about foreign affairs and history perhaps they would have picked a better name to call themselves other than "socialists".
6
The Military-Industrial Complex’s strategy of creating jobs in virtually every congressional district, for military personnel, defense contractors, and service industry support to the bases. Just like the much needed shrinking of the medical insurance industry, removing this creature that has burrowed under our skin will not be easy or painless. Those of us old enough to remember the Base Closing Commission recall the angst and pain that pruning caused.
3
The reason the foreign policy of the Divided States rarely deviates much from one Administration to another is that the true Controlling Influences within the larger system, namely Banks and Corporations, dictate, through our so called "leaders', what that policy will be. Eisenhower called it the Military Industrial Complex. Foreign policy for the Divided States is designed to protect Corporate Interests exclusively, not the Country's citizenry. When you really look at the officials who "represent the people", particularly in the House, there are very, very few who have any expertise or even broad knowledge of foreign ( or even domestic) policy. In most States they are hand selected white men who choose to follow their (republican) party's policy line without question. Thinking is not part of their responsibility because their job is to merely vote for what they are told to vote for.
"Progressive" Democrats are in a similar situation, but are attempting to expand the boundaries of their party's policies.
Ocasio-Cortez's self proclaimed ignorance on an issue is not the question. The question is how willing and quickly she can learn the issues, foreign or domestic, without necessarily parroting Party positions.
The monied interests of the DS are hell bent on controlling every aspect of the gov., using the populace as fodder when needed. If the people continue to accept the status quo, that's what they will deserve.
2
Ask POTUS where Myanmar is.
Or Senegal.
Or Moldova.
Brunei, Etc.
#kelly-calls-him-moron
2
She probably thinks it is, like, a totally awesome dumpling place [insert emojis here]!
6
Fair question. More to the point: What does Donald Trump think about the South China Sea?
3
Now that is one random headline.
And I see the randomness of it is indeed your point.
Clever, Bessner.
Clever
The new socialists are like the old socialists.
And just like with the old socialists, the proverbial dustbin of history awaits them.
8
Hey, JX3...do me a favor:
Define "socialism".
I'll be waiting right here.
2
@John Xavier III
I define it as what I grew up under in Eastern Europe.
I define it as what F.A. Hayek describes in "The Road to Serfdom".
I define it as what every ignorant smug pseudo-intellectual fails to logically imagine when he/she asks the question "what is socialism"?
Sorry to keep you waiting.
2
@John Xavier III
Those are the old backward-looking definitions, all distorted by authoritarianism. The new socialism is people oriented, like that found in the Scandinavian countries or Canada.
Its a shame Mr. Bessner thinks so little of his ostensible main points that he buries them under an endless pile of calumny for "the left", for "liberals", "the insurgent left wing", "leftists", "socialists".
Yet every issue he raises is directly analogous to clear failings among foreign policy experts on the Crazy Right.
Here's a question: would you rather have a leader who can say, in essence, I don't know, let me learn more and I'll get back to you on that", or one who pretends to know it all and has unshakable conviction that its high time to bring Nazism to the USA, that nothing Israel ever does is open to question, and Vlad the Beautiful and the Little Rocket Man represent America's future?
3
This article had nothing to do with Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez. So why do they title it as such. The China Red Sea isn't mentioned except in the title. This was really a diatribe by the author who hoped someone would read it if he could attach someone elses name to it.
4
Assuming that the left radical Socialist Democrats do not suffer from the US typical ignorance of world geography, what -- if anything at all -- should Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez think about the South China Sea?
Whether from the left or right, we are increasingly getting candidates, and subsequently elected officials who are dumb and dumber! There are a variety of reasons for this! So sad...
6
The article does not crisply answer the question in the headline.
I am afraid the candidate has had little interest or understanding of the question, and is very likely to hold uninformed, even silly, views about the issue.
Progressives are no better than Trumpist rightists when it comes to thinking about National Security Interests, I am afraid.
3
Would you be happy if the left wanted to invade every country as the Republicans do. I say Occasio's position is pretty good. Why attack someone if they haven't done anything to you, and if they haven't offended you, there isn't much reason to invade them, is there?
2
Why does the left need a foreign policy when the right, now led by a President who can't find the South China sea on a map.
The first step for liberals is to know the front end of a missile from the back, never mind that artsy stuff.
5
Sounds like the left should hire you. In all seriousness.
What sexist, racist nonsense. Has anyone ever raised such questions about a white male candidate?
If you think most of our white, male, anglo congressmen can explain where exactly the south China Sea is, you are deeply mistaken.
Our President is a first class example of the kind of ignorant "whatever is good for me" businessman politicians
who run the world.
5
That’s rich posting some sort of Christmas wishlist about what the left needs to do about international relations when the right’s president kowtows to Vladimir Putin at every opportunity and is jealous of strongmen with lifetime appointments, all while consistently undermine global democracy and our historic allies. But you do you, Red Hat sympathizer.
Giver her time. She may yet buy into the CIA- neocon agenda that has guided our foreign policy for decades --
https://consortiumnews.com/2018/09/13/why-the-u-s-seeks-to-hem-in-russia...
I find it interesting that all of these ideas, with the exception of internationalism, are also key planks of libertarian foreign policy. I hope the far-left of the Democratic Party and the libertarian wing of the Republican party find a way to caucus on these vital issues.
3
I find Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez honest and professional when she says international politics are not her theme. It is better a politician that acknowledges what they are not prepared to answer or know, than politicians talking about things they don't know. If her career grows enough and she needs to talk and get involved in international politics, I am sure she will prepare herself and get a stand on those issues. For now, she is all about her community.
7
Then why is she running for Congress?
2
@Rich Because communities are where people live, work, get sick, get killed with guns, breathe dirty air and drink dirty water, get evicted or foreclosed, get educated or not.
Many politicians rely upon the opinion of experts before making decisions. I think it is wise to deflect a question that one is not too familiar with. Asking pop ?s on endless issues, who has all of the answers? We're not walking, talking Wikipedias or Googles.
1
I recall Al Gore and John Kerry, both with tremendous foreign policy chops, losing elections to George W. Bush. W. had to be told where China is in relation to Italy at a Davos meeting. Why did the author pick on Ocasio-Cortez? I guess it was to guarantee that his piece would be published. Beyond that, she should be lauded for sticking with local issues during her campaign. She's not stupid when she takes a pass on opining on the Israeli-Palestinian issue. Looking for men with no foreign policy knowledge who occupy positions of power? Well, there is Trump who remarked upon landing in Israel that he was "coming from the Middle East." Professor Bessner does not have it all figured out. Give foreign policy power back to Congress? That only works if they don't take oaths to sabotage the African-American occupant of the Oval Office. No?
3
What does Mr. Bessner think is America's responsibility to the suffering Syrians, the Rohingya, Chinese Muslims living in concentration camp style arrangements? American foreign policy in earlier years swung between isolationism to trying to intervene too often, too foolishly. He doesn't give one practical answer to the question of, are the numerous issues of human rights abuses our concern or not?
Then, he pairs Saudi Arabia with Israel. No mention of the gross human rights abuses hoisted onto ordinary Israelis by violence loving Palestinian terrorists, and their so-called leadership which encourages this. What does this tell me?
Sorry, I think his point about progressive foreign policy is correct, but if comparing Saudi Arabia to Israel is his best example, I shudder to think what progressives have in store for us. Like, totally open borders, no questions asked?
5
This essay doesn't even bother to repackage every terrible Leftist position of the past before trotting them out. I guess the author is could ting on today's youngsters not knowing the lessons of the past. If you think Viet am was a failure, it is only because you cannot inagi e the alternative. BTW, today America is viewed favorably by a large majority of Vietnamese:
http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2015/04/30/vietnamese-see-u-s-as-ke...
4
The Vietnam War was a massive failure. We wasted billions of dollars and millions of lives for a war with no definable victory condition. The fact that 50 years later we have decent relations has no bearing on the damage that the war had on both the people of Southeast Asia and the people of America. Vietnam changed our perceptions of government, and perceptions of our fellow citizens for the worse.
@Charles Becker We are also viewed favorably by Germans and Japanese and we view them favorablly too.
Her answer : Well, I have heard it is in the South, near China, but, I am not a geography expert...!
4
Step one, dont fight Al Qaeda in Afghanistan, Iraq and Africa but give them arms and funding in Syria.
1
These concerns are what causes me to pause when I think of voting in the 2020 elections. The current administrations warped and dangerous policies frighten me due to the lack of cohesion and unpredictability that ignorant and shallow leadership creates. I want new leadership from the left but at the same time, I want the security that familiarity creates. While I would love to forge a new path for us, my instinct says that the leadership that someone like Joe Biden who has been around the block a few times is needed to get us back to a stable state by rebuilding our alliances with an understanding of that history. This administration has caused critical and unpredictable damage to our security and the future of our standing in the world. I crave stability and real leadership that I am familiar with, more than forging into unknown waters when it comes to foreign policy. I wish it were different. Unless I see solid foreign policy chops from these new candidates, I will continue to lean toward more experienced leadership.
50
@JDH
These experienced people are very experienced in supporting stupid and immoral wars. And if re-elected, they will obtain yet more experience along the same lines.
2
@JDH Having Joe Biden back in the government is a great idea because he knows what he's doing. I'd make him Secretary of State because I doubt if he'd make even one term as president because he's an old man, let alone two. The Democrats have a problem because the leadership is full of old fossils like Steny Hoyer and Nancy Pelosi, while they have energenic millennials who don't yet seem presidential timber.
1
@JDH Familiarity??? Biden?? Were you asleep at the start of the Syrian Civil War, or Libya? These foreign policy blunders lead to the creation of Isis. Also, Obama turned a blind eye to the Saudis and participated in the slaughter in Yemen. If you want social democracy, these destructive foreign policy and military decisions based around globalization and capitalism need to stop once and for all. The Pentagon needs to be defunded, and that money needs to go to the working class people of the united states. A robust social democracy in the United States removed from global militarism would have a ripple effect across the world ending an array of atrocities. Or we can just stick with what's "familiar."
1
We wreak havoc abroad?
1
Yes, what we need are more foreign policy experts. People like the brilliant analysts who gave us The Domino Theory in Asia and The Bay of Pigs and WMD and the whole endless Cold War and the invasion of Libya, to name but a few debacles.
Look at the mess the world is in. The experts did that.
So naturally, we need more experts.
What is Henry Kissinger up to these days...
https://emcphd.wordpress.com
2
This kind of strikes me as left wing America first isolationism. Also it has nothing to say about the South China/sea of japan issue, which would indeed be a test for the author’s thesis. Finally paying alleged low wages to overseas workers often in fact raises the living standards of those workers in their home economy while delivering lower prices to Americans. This article is altogether too much like a mirror of trump, although it has some good ideas like we should stop letting America be Netanyahu’s poodle.
1
Good lord, what has happened to the New York Times?
The left is neither silent or confused on matters of foreign policy. It's just that the United States is crumbling under the weight of internal corruption that the left is laser focused on domestic right now. For example, if we had addressed campaign finance reform, not had a conservative led Supreme Court rubber stamp Citizens United issues like Russians buying out the GOP and NRA, and ultimately the presidency we wouldn't be in a situation like we are now.
Politicians like Bernie Sanders, Elizabeth Warren, Ocasio-Cortez doesn't have to talk specifically about the Philippines or Burma, they don't have to talk about Crimea or Ukraine, because they have already vocalize American principles of free speech, human rights. Unlike today's republicans where they can't even denounce Nazis, or the kidnapping and perpetual incarceration of children.
You show a picture of Bush surrounded by Colin Powell and other members of his NSC. All men who led us into the longest wars in our nation's history. Meanwhile the left has distinguish members of the military and intelligence providing leadership and advice, you have people like Get Wesley Clark and Gen Hertling are on the center left on many issues.
I would also remind Mr Bessner that the American public who continues to vote Republican fell for a jingoistic word jumble that the right sold as foreign policy. So this idea that the left is missing something seems rather disingenuous.
1
The new democratic socialist left is wary of wading into a discussion of ongoing U.S. imperialism because it knows to expect a vicious backlash. If a discussion of the plight of the pala
stinian people is attempted screams of antisemitism immediately result. An honest discussion of the brutality of ongoing U.S. imperialism in Latin American countries like Honduras generates distain from the Bush/Clinton/Obama/Trump advisors who perpetuated it (Kissinger, anyone?).
1
Bess er has some good ideas, that would largely resonate with a majority of American voters. There’s no doubt that we need to reign in military spending and the resulting bloat of operations. Putting the CIA back into the form of an intelligence gathering service, rather than a black-ops military wing, should be part of that strategy as well. We should also reassess our relationship with Israel and demand and end to the crimes that government is committing against the Palestinians. No more US money should go to Israel until apartheid and ethnic cleansing stop.
All of these ideas will run into the wall of real-politic, however, and the danger is that liberals will join the political compromise (and Congressional cowardice) on which US foreign policy is built. To have an effective, honest, and ethical foreign policy, we need to elect leaders who have the same qualities.
He's a professor at the Henry M. Jackson School but opposes everything Jackson stood for.
2
Here is another unelected policy maker ensconced in his position as an assistant professor in American foreign policy at the University of Washington’s School of International Studies pronouncing what is best for the national security of the United States—as he condemns the others of his class whose policy stances he seeks to destroy. I did not hear a single recommendation about how to end the Chinese invasion of the South China Sea. Instead this knee jerk Bernie Bro wants entirely demilitarize US Foreign Policy because of serious mistakes and flaws. A de-militarized US is a serious danger for the whole world—this is what Trump is after. This is a part of what is wrong with the so called “socialists” who are so eager to destroy the Democratic Party. Like Trump they push populist ideas without thinking through the difficult details… how is ending NAFTA going? Oh gee, didn’t Bernie want that?
1
A word missing in this article is "Syria". What should the Left be saying as the last area of resistance to Assad (Idlib) faces a bloodbath?
U.S. intervention in Syria in Raqaa is known as is its support for a Kurdish group that fought ISIS. Virtually unknown is another intervention, the Obama and Trump ban on anti-aircraft weapons being sent/purchased by resistance forces. That ban has made the Syrian people sitting ducks for the barrel bombs from helicopters and high explosives from Syrian and Russian jets.
Nor has much attention been given to the peaceful measures that might have been taken (and still can be taken) like supplying democratic forces with food and medicine, like using U.S. radar data to warn communities when Assad bombers are on their way.
So what should the Left be doing on Syria? Should it call for Turkey to reopen its borders? Should its prominent spokespersons refuse to appear on RT, the Russian propaganda channel? Should it call for Idlib to be flooded with defensive anti-aircraft weapons? Should it start boycotts of Russian and Iranian goods and picket in front of their embassies and consulates?
Think back to the 1930's as the "neutrality" of the West in Spain allowed Hitler to overwhelm the Republic. History never repeats exactly, but the world will certainly pay a price if it allows the Syrian revolution to end in total annihilation. A few days ago thousands rallies in Idlib in defiance of Assad. Will the Left turn its backs on them?
1
@Stanley Heller We should never have armed the "moderate" Syrian rebels in the first place. They fight side by side with Al Qaeda. The war dragged on because our intervention and that of the Saudis allowed the insurgents to kill roughly 100,000 Syrian soldiers and militia. The Russians came in because Syria might have collapsed, leaving the country to be fought over by jihadis of various types, or alternatively, to exterminate the Alawites and drive out the Shia and Christians. One never hears a word about religious minorities from the pro-rebel advocates.
Assad is a thug, but we did intervene and we did make things worse, as we did in Iraq and Libya.
1
Ms. Ocasio-Cortez' talking points and platform planks have been fed to her by the Democratic Socialists of America, of which she is a self-proclaimed--and proud--member.
When the time comes for her to speak about and vote on matters of foreign policy, she will once again be channeling the Democratic Socialists of America, who openly espouse massive redistribution of income and turning over the means of production to the workers (i.e., classic Marxism/Communism).
I am quite surprised that the DSA allowed her to appear in a photo shoot with manual laborers while she was wearing an upscale, utterly non-socialist style outfit that cost about $3,500. On the other hand, the DSA has almost succeeded in purging the internet of photos of Ms. Ocasio-Cortez in a limousine, so maybe they will have similar success with the manual labor photo shoot (see here https://constitution.com/what-ocasio-cortez-wore-to-photoshoot-has-ameri... ).
Ms. Ocasio-Cortez's (and the DSA's) theme of "Free everything for everybody" sounds good until people realize that all the free stuff has to be paid for--via increased taxes on those who work and earn money.
As Margaret Thatcher so aptly put it, "The problem with socialism is that you eventually run out of other people's money."
4
In the wake of the Arab Spring, many of us in the new Left want to smash the old left's pacifism and isolationism, stuck in Vietnam and Iraq, while we take on global capitalism.
An example is Ayanna Presley defeating Mike Capuano. Capuano led the fight to condemn our killing of Qaddafi, which saved Libya a genocide. Capuano led the fight against taking the same action in Syria, resulting in the dissolution of the world order. Presley supports taking out Assad and preventing the world's descent into anarchy, while of course rejecting any responsibility for an occupation to create an American client state, the old playbook we wisely moved beyond in Libya.
“As the insurgent left wing of the Democratic Party captures headlines and wins votes...”
Headlines, yes. Votes, not so much.
2
In short, these folks are not ready for prime time.
4
In general I agree with the author’s views that elected officials should be steeped in foreign policy experience... that is until I saw the accompanying photo of the Larry, Moe, Curly and Shemp (Bush, Cheney, etc...) of foreign policy expertise. Ocasio-Cortez would have to make a Herculean effort to do worse than these Stooges.
2
While this article makes some valid points, it is long on Politically Correct dogma and short on a realistic assessment of our position and our responsibilities.
Most American presidents have given more than lip service to promoting democracy. George W. Bush was hated on the left, but made some real efforts. Obama is sainted on the left, but on his watch the Arab Spring came and went, leaving one small fragile democracy (Tunisia) and one large dictatorship (Egypt) in far worse shape than before.
As far as American hegemony, Realpolitik dictates that weak countries are oppressed by strong ones. I do not want an all-conquering America, but am even less enthused about a weak America. The statement that "The U.S. doesn't face any serious external challengers" is dangerous nonsense. As Russia's military head cheerfully pointed out, Russia could wipe out half the American population. More realistically, China is pushing ruthlessly to make the South China Sea a privately owned lake, at the expense of our loyal friends in Taiwan, South Korea, Japan and even India and Australia.
This article talks of threat deflation, but implementing the suggested policies would place our country and the world in far greater danger.
Dan Kravitz
5
She definitely does...It’s where here $3300 outfits and $600 shoes come from. This Socialism stuff pays pretty well.
2
“The what?”
That would be her answer.
3
A country surrounded by two giant oceans and two big friendly countries really doesn't need a military at all.
So what about the South China Sea where this failed president has ceded hegemony to China's invasion with off-shore bases?
What Does Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez Think About the South China Sea? More than Trump.
1
Will the left intervene militarily to prevent genocide? Can they do this if they “draw down”? I think that domestic policy is their niche, i.e. the rights of man, but foreign policy? Well, the author grouped Saudi Arabia with Israel, so I guess we know, like Britain’s Labour Party, that foreign policy will be run by the latest fashion and not one that would help the most people.
2
Orcasio -Cortez is a very, very poor informed candidate. In a recent interview, when asked about Israel, she responded, "you mean the occupiers?" The interviewer was shocked and said, "are you speaking of the modern state of Israel?"....and Cortez backed away and then said, "well, I need to learn more about that area if the world".
I would never vote for her under any circumstances. This is what she brings?
3
Apparently, Ocasio- Cortez is the only person running for Congress in NYC or NYS, so she gets coverage.
2
The author rather confusingly and imprecisely equates socialism with the left. One can, of course, be a leftist and not embrace socialism.
Let's stipulate that the left hasn't a firm command of foreign policy. But that is not a pressing problem just now.
At a time when our commander-in-chief is an outright ignoramus whose knowledge of domestic and foreign policy could fit in a teacup, I find it rather odd to fret about the left's purported lack of international affairs.
President Trump has his hands on the levers of power and has amply what a clear and present danger that represents.
Recent voter polls consistently show jobs, the economy, health care and corruption as the top concerns.
Foreign policy barely registers.
So, it could be argued that the short-term electoral strategy should be focused on domestic issues.
Apparently, the author believes Americans will vote based on their foreign policy convictions.
If so, he's out of touch with the electorate.
30
@Ricardo Chavira
There is a chicken and egg question here. Is the electorate indifferent to the fact that, for instance, we are helping the Saudis commit mass murder in Yemen because they don't care, or do they not care because the press and its comparative lack of coverage keep them from knowing? I also think that even when people do know, the comparative lack of coverage subconsciously persuades them that it just isn't that important, because there is so little fuss made about it.
2
@Ricardo Chavira How do you not understand that the funding behind violent foreign policy decisions directly effects domestic issues?? If people want things like single payer health care, and guaranteed wages, then we need to look where all our tax money goes to. The overwhelming majority of it is going to fund an inflated military still committed to the violent and self destructive conquest of globalization and capitalism.
1
@Ricardo Chavira -- "But that is not a pressing problem just now."
Yes, it is. We have more wars than ever before in our history, and they've gone on for longer, and we are losing them all, and they show no signs of ending. It is a problem, and pressing.
1
I agree with many policy points in this article with the exception that military spending is NOT the main driver for economic inequality. The main driver is the Reagan era tax revision that favors trickle down.
I realize that she's only used as the hook for this article, but really it seems like we're applying double standards to a young likely member of the House when our Executive and Legislative branches have employed questionable foreign policy for several years.
We had one of the smartest, most in-tune foreign policy wonks in our hands and instead decided to elect a man whose understanding of foreign policy extended almost as far as the locations of his hotels and golf courses.
It just seems a bit rich for people to be criticizing AOC at this particular moment in time. Not least because (and I can't stress this enough) she would be one member of the House of Representatives. She wouldn't be running the government.
2
Thank you for this column. I (a committed liberal with leftist tendencies) really needed this message. We need to be more educated - and more engaged - on foreign policy, not to the exclusion of high-priority domestic issues, but as an extension of them.
3
Thank you for the very articulated international policies from the left. I am not concerned that young political stars like Ms. Ocasio-Cortez are not yet fully versed in foreign policy. Hopefully, as these young politicians rise in the government, they will learn and grow. Nonetheless, Prof. Bessner's excellent article is a good guidepost for them to start developing their own thinking.
1
While I do not agree with all of the author's solutions, as a Democrat I absolutely agree with his assessment of our lack of knowledge of international affairs. I agree that the Congress needs to step up and reassert its authority. But it most be done in a smart way that showcases its understanding and that is especially important for the "rising left" as he calls it.
International affairs cannot be left solely to the House and Senate Foreign Relations and Defense committees though their role is critical. And though I do understand the strong desire to focus on domestic issues, it is not acceptable for those who will be newly elected to Congress to say they have no knowledge of "geopolitical" issues. This is an area where the DNC, numerous think tanks and universities can help both party nominees and newly elected officials.
America has a continuing role to play in the world, contrary to the opinions of some and all of our elected officials need to become more aware of the issues on all side of the equation.
..."a more just and peaceful era", music to our ears if we could change the authoritarian imposition of unilateral decisions that benefit the corporate world, and, let's just say it, the imbalanced power of a lucrative military-industrial complex (remember Eisenhower?), especially from these United States. As long as 'inequality' is allowed free rein, and human rights are trampled upon with permission of thugs 'a la Trump', no social justice can be expected, hence no societal peace in an upside-down world of our own creation.
This is all a bit silly. The left has been espousing these principles ever since Vietnam.
1
Tangential but I just have to say it: abolition of IcE is not a platform plank. Comprehensive immigration reform is ultimately what the left wants. The right used to say they wanted it too.
1
Of course Ocasio-Cortez should get smart on all this. But I get rather annoyed by all the people who try to note shortcomings in her knowledge base when we had a GOP majority in both houses who last year said with a straight face that tax cuts for the rich would increase tax revenues rather than create a trillion-dollar deficit. Just one of countless examples of where the party in power talks nonsense about the policies they enact. She could not possibly be worse.
It might be good if the Left (whatever that means these days) started by being accountable itself, and giving up some of the tirades against President Obama, Clinton, and others.
South China Sea? Restore TPP, which was always intended to help contain China, get at least some workers' protections, some environmental regulations, and a mechanism for peacefully addressing disputes.
And how hard can it be to say we're back in the Paris Accords, bigly, not to mention the Iran Deal?
What is hard--and nearly all of this is on Dubya et al, who squandered anything remaining of our moral authority with the demented Iraq War--would be handling what's going on in Syria or in Myanmar, or coping with Vlad the Putin. We stand and watch and scratch ourselves, or...what? Candy and flowers?
Sorry, but we have to have troops in South Korea. Well trained and supplied, too. We need NATO. We cannot wave slogans and ignore what a leftish government is doing in Venezuela.
The prob for the sort of Left represented in this article: distinguishing its isolationism from Donald Trump's.
@Robert
Well, one difference would be that under this sort of policy we wouldn't have invaded Iraq or helped the Saudis murder children in Yemen. Yes, tiny little differences, I suppose, to Americans who pay no attention to trivialities.
1
These young self identified socialists are really opening up the discussion about socialism. What really is socialism? Is it the quest for equality in access to healthcare, education and jobs? Is it anti capitalist to desire the separation of sickness and bankruptcy? There should be no need to use the term democrat as a modifier of socialist. Is not democracy by definition socialist? Admittedly the term has been used in association with dictatorial regimes whose starting points were struggles with monarchies and other forms of oppression. Asking this twenty-eight year old politician about the South China Sea may be gratifying for one whose major interest is in that part of the ocean. For those of us with minimal access to timely healthcare, poor schooling for our kids, contaminated water and food, it means nothing. That our sons are targeted and killed for being black trumps the South China Sea...and China. There are more than just a few people like Ms. Ocasio Cortez whom are competing in the next round of elections. She has my support even if absent of knowledge about the China Sea. The only people who fear socialism are the self centered, ignorant robber baron type and their wannabees who badly want their turn at the trough. We have tried those whom we elect only to see them fatten themselves with lucre provided by twenty first Century Barons. They are the rest. They need to be kicked out while we really try governing of, by and for the People..
1
@Francis - There are other people who fear socialism. I know some of them personally. A married couple who fled from “the workers paradise" of the Soviet Union.” You should hear what they have to say about it. And let us not forget those who died trying to escape East Berlin.
That young people seem to be utterly ignorant of these recent historical facts, and thus are in favor of “socialism” is terrifying. Do people really want the government to “own the means of production?” How far down would that extend?
Would the government only seize large corporations? Or would they seize small businesses also?
Most of these recommendations aren’t leftist or socialist at all - less than 5 years ago they’d be called reasonable. The problem we face now is that both extremes run the majority parties and both the far right and far left are corrupt and incompetent. We don’t need socialism - we need a new party that rejects the extremes and would fall in line with a majority of he country that believes in democracy and capitalism and doesn’t believe that compromise is a dirty word.
The first question should be whether she even knows where it is or why it might be important.
4
First, there are no lefty foreign policy think tanks because think tanks are financed by the petrostates and fortunes made in the military-industrial complex (Nitze Johns Hopkins SAIS).
Left wing foreign policy would start with recognizing global climate disruption for the existential threat that it is. Create a "Manhattan Project " to decarbonize the electric grid and electrify the transportation fleet. The price of oil drops to close to nothing. This would cripple petrostates like Russia and Saudi Arabia/UAE. Russia would no longer be able to cause trouble in Europe and Syria, and SA/UAE would be forced out of Yemen and to de-escalate the conflict with Iran (also dependent on oil money to finance it's foreign ambitions). Except for helping to settle the Israeli-Palestinian conflict (end to Israeli annexation of Palestinian West Bank and a two state solution) the US would have no reason to be in the Middle East. Once that is settled we no longer need to sell massive amounts of arms to all sides.
Once the global climate is stabilized, equalizing opportunity in the developing world is the key to stopping migrant flows that are causing the rise of right-wing parties in Europe and the US. Help Central American and African countries to establish and strengthen their institutions, and then provide them with access to our markets via free trade, creating the same economic benefits of international specialization, without the disruption caused by massive migrant flows.
2
The wave of new people coming into congress is a very good thing, but to ascribe the qualities of the Second Coming to people like Ocasio-Cortez or Sen. Harris, is foolish. These people are a breath of fresh air, but they are also very inexperienced. Give them a decade to get their feet on the ground and learn how things work, then perhaps, they will be in a position to make knowledgeable suggestions on how to move forward.
We have already seen what a mess can be made by shoving an unseasoned person into a job for which they were clearly not ready.
Left wing politics is about giving power to ordinary people? Really? Then why the disgust with populism? I’ve read 500 stories in the Times that it was terrible that ordinary people elected Trump. So when the article says ordinary people it means ordinary liberal activist voters.
1
David Bessner says "the left itself lacks institutions dedicated to developing foreign policy ideas." Has he never heard of the Institute for Policy Studies which has done that for some 50 years?
1
I beg to differ, Mr. Bessner. All the left need do is let the system continue its collapse and make a gentle case of "guns or butter" from the stump as they compare a slick Marine Corps MV-22 (72.1 million per) to the rotting D+ infrastructure and poor education rates of the entire USA. Imperial overstretch always hits the country that performs it right back in the face. Our task is to show the empire has no clothes and all these hefty investments in MIC, foreign wars and bases have smashed the piggy bank with little or no return to the rest of us. It's time to come home, create a modest foreign policy and join the rest of the world as an equal, adult partner rather than a delusional, aged superpower with no credibility.
1
The disaster of the conduct of post war Afghanistan and Iraq suggests that the right, Republicans, neo-Cons aren't too informed or knowledgeable about foreign policy either.
Before we expect Ms. Ocasio-Cortez to have a view on the south China Sea, let us hear what "abolish ICE" means.
ICE is Immigration and Customs enforcement.
Does she mean that the United States shall have no enforcement of Immigration law or customs? Really?
2
ICE as an agency went rogue shortly after its creation. It is not accountable to the president (just ask anyone in the Obama administration). It's organizational hierarchy is decidedly lacking in lawyers, so laws and rights are often broken by those who don't know better or don't care. Abolishing ICE and redistributing it's duties and responsibilities back into CBP is the best course of action. Abolishing ICE doesn't mean no border security, it means accountable, ethical border security
Weird how the Left is expected to continue the nefarious and dangerous foreign policies of the past, simply because each president abided by them.
The South China Sea is not the US’s nor should it be. What a ridiculously imperialist and dangerous idea that the US must flex its muscles everywhere on earth.
2
Of course. Why should we learn anything from the results of applying precisely Trump's mix of isolationism, bullying and racism in the Pacific during the 1920s and 1930s?
Just like the Sanders and Ocasio-Cortez campaign, Dr. Bressner's recommendations are high-minded but devoid of concrete explanations. None of these positions are new. Numerous foreign policy establishment figures recommend greater participation in international institutions. Isolationists like the Pauls recommend downsizing the military and giving up America's self-appointed position as global cop. But how would a foreign policy approach guided by a social democrat deal with issues like Myanmar, the Rwandan genocide, the Israeli-Arab conflict, international terrorism, etc.? Nothing in this piece sheds any light on why or how the social democratic Left would solve problems that the foreign policy establishment cannot. And this is a big part of the problem with current antiestablishment politics on the Left and Right. Trumpisms defects are obvious.But I expected more from the Left even though I lost my faith in it a long time ago. Neither Ocasio-Cortez nor Sanders can specifically explain how they will implement their gargantuan education and health care policies, which are the staples of their platform. Moreover, Ocasio-Cortez's blunders are not due to a lack of foreign policy research by social democrats. She simply doesn't know what she's talking about in a lot of instances. I hate to say it but some of her detractors may be accurate in describing her as the Sarah Palin of the Left.
2
I have my doubts as well, but blind drunk on the worst day of her life, she'd be three steps up from Sarah Palin on her best day ever.
@Robert
If your comment had gone in the opposite direction NYT would not have posted.
So foreign policy elites are incompetent and the left must find some billionaires to fund think tanks to school clueless congresspersons in foreign policy. Who might staff said think tanks? Professors, like the author, of course. Maybe the article should be titled "I Want My Turn."
1
Reining in the military industrial complex that has grown exponentially since Eisenhower's warning should be job one. This does not require promoting leftist economic policies, it requires, oversight of government contracts, accountability for results, consideration of foreign policy goals and a cost-benefit analysis of the best ways to achieve those goals. On all of those things a bi-partisan consensus should be possible - provided - and this is the big caveat - that the consensus isn't poisoned by corporate dollars seeking to maintain the status quo.
Unfortunately, when reduced to a bumper sticker, the complex issues and trade offs in consideration of foreign policy and the workings of the military industrial complex becomes:
Support the troops.
Who can disagree with that?
That's why discussion of these policies cannot take place at the level of retail politics. That's why we need think tanks on both left and right that are not beholden to corporate dollars to consider policy proposals in detail.
And...
The people making our foreign policy and helping to set our military budgets and priorities should be barred from lobbying for at least five years.
83
@Mike Marks Though I am on the left, I agree that this shouldn't be a leftist issue. There is no logical reason why someone with rightwing views on taxation, for instance, would support our endless wars and interventions overseas.
1
I am all for increasing the perspicuity, intelligence and forthrightness of all candidates and representatives with respect to foreign policy.
The article also makes good points with respect to how the left might meet this challenge.
However, the conceit of this article is that republicans and the right wing already have such an intelligent position.
At a deeper level, a very insidious trope is being replayed that unconsciously reaffirms the falsehood that republican candidates are in possession of thoughts 'the South China Sea', and are serious about foreign policy.
They don't have such a policy. Look at the last two republican presidents.
Candidates on the right speak in platitudes. Can they locate the South China Sea on a map?
Seriously, hold both party's candidates to this standard.
And the idea that the left has not advocated for what he calls for in this article ,in specific proposals, and for decades , is just false.
95
@Brendan
"Can they locate the South China Sea on a map?"
brings up the fact that most people cannot.
See The Upshot (NYT) article in 2017 about finding
North Korea on the map.
The guesses are like pin the tail on the donkey.
Since. so much (perhaps not all) of what Bessner proposes has long been supported by Libertarians and others, I'm wondering why he describes the agenda as liberal/leftist/progressive/socialist? Many conservative Republicans support just such an approach; it has broad appeal.
101
@JPE
Name one.
@JPE Because if we reallocated the tax money that is gratuitously spent on warfare it could be used to produce a robust sum of social welfare. Republicans or their hipster counterparts, Libertarians, would sooner just end the taxes and continue to pursue draconian economic policies that give no rights to workers and destroy any semblance of providing for the material needs of citizens.
The best way to promote peace and prosperity throughout the world is to act against corruption. The best way to act against corruption is to cut off tax havens, work to end money laundering, and demand more transparency in international finance.
219
@Mitchell Berger
Cutting off corruption is exactly what Trump is trying to do with the China trade tariffs.
1
Also stop selling arms to repressive regimes around the world. The US is the world’s largest exporter of arms, large and small.
1
@Mitchell Berger In the US, campaign contributions may be the most worrisome problem--the 1% and corporations basically buy elections by flooding them with cash. But yes, all these kinds of corruption have got to go!
Leftist? It sounds like Dwight D. Eisenhower's beware "the military industrial" complex. Even Sen. Vanderbilt's and Trump's "America First." And as a leftist I agree entirely. We are the world's gun runner and our war machine is always hungry for use. To start we need to end the recurring oscillation between realist and idealist in the foriegn policy establishment: they follow the same narrative and the same practices, and we should begin to use our bloated military budget to promote humane policies that build weak countries rather than exploit their weaknesses for our gain as we gain on our own infrastructure weaknesses. Turn guns to ploughshares. Give peace a chance.
150
When I read the headline I was worried this would be another attack on the left for allegedly being too naive to govern. I was delighted to instead read a constructive and well considered op-ed full of excellent advice. I think Bessner hits all the right points. "Internationalism" in particular should be an area where the left leads. Many of our problems today—both economic and environmental—are global in scope and the left needs to take the lead in strengthening global institutions that allow nations to work together to solve global problems in ways that respect the democratic rights of the people while still resulting in effective and enforceable policies.
195
You hit the nail on the head. The left is surely too naive to govern with respect to foreign policy issues.
To compensate, the right is wayyy too ignorant to govern when it comes to foreign policy issues/
1
@617to416...
It may not be an allegation that the left is too naive to govern, but is certainly start with that sort of premise.
But Dr. Bressner's entire piece is the stuff of dreams that will crash quickly when they face off against the Constitution and the "bureaucracy".
This is one of those rare columns that makes me say, "I want to take a class with them."
American hegemony has, for too long, been too myopically focused on how to keep the peace through overwhelming power. We overthrew democratically elected governments in other countries for far too many decades, in part so we could protect our access to their resources via very wealthy, very well-connected corporations.
All too often, the US has shown no trust in new and fragile democratic republics. Engagement and negotiation might not have gotten us absolutely everything we got via military and covert ops, but it still should have gotten us much of the way very quickly. If the people in power at the time had been more in Bernie and Ocasio-Cortez's mold, we still would have had plenty of firepower available but wouldn't have started a war just to get resources.
With rare exceptions, war creates more problems than it solves. We need to solve the problems created by war, but one of the best ways that we regularly forget is stopping new wars from blossoming out of the old ones.
2
Let's increase spending on public schools to 2% of GDP. That is the best defense against global competitors.
1
There are easy answers for peace anywhere in the world, but in particular in the region of the South China Sea (which China wishes to control all by themselves)
First, not too many things can be done in the diplomatic field, unless it is a concerted effort by all countries in the entire world. What happens on one side of the world directly affects what happens on the other. If that includes sanctions, because a certain country will not adhere, then it requires all to create that pressure.
Secondly, almost everything in the world is related to financial matters. (sanctions being the lever from above) If a country cannot afford a military, nor the food to feed itself, then it cannot wage war. (even North Korea tries to get around this, but is propped up/a puppet of China which supplies it with almost everything)
Lastly, foreign policy is not a platform for the political left or right, but rather a direct result of one country trying to get the most out of another or many.
This planet is dying and being used up at an alarming rate. (it may already be at the point of no return directly leading to our extinction)
ALL countries to need to have a foreign policy to work in unison to overcome those problems that is fair and proportional to what is needed. The United States (and other large 1st world industrialized nations) must lead and confront these problems and enact most of the solutions.
That is all of the foreign policy that is required.
3
I agree with these recommendations wholeheartedly. But maybe because of my age, 63, I have become pessimistic about America's future. Like the effects of Climate Change, it well be too late to turn back the tide, as we are witnessing today by the devastation of hurricane Florence in the Carolina's. Our nation has been over taken by the military industrial complex that President Eisenhower warned about and our Founding Fathers foresaw as a threat to the new republic they envisioned. We have survived a civil war that ended slavery but not the cancer of racism. Our prisons are our new form of slavery. Our public education system is under attack by the right as is our healthcare. The gulf between the wealthy and the have-nots is growing exponentially. There may still be hope for America, but I'm losing faith.
8
@steve, I'm 76 and I share your pessimism, not only about America's future, but about the future of all of us. Still - I try to live according to Martin Luther's maxim: "..if I knew that the world would go down tomorrow, I still would plant a tree today.."
Keep planting, Steve, one of your trees might survive! And if not, you at least had the pleasure of planting hope!
@Werner Thanks, very good advice
It doesn't take long before the author gets to the root of their concern, that defense spending is crowding out investment in infrastructure, eduction and scientific research.
The trouble is, that isn't true.
This isn't to say that there are not many reasons to be critical of defense spending, but just that "we can't afford it" isn't one of them. America's defense spending dwarfs many other countries' level of funding, but it's not causing high inflation.
When comparing countries defense spending, in addition to converting to a common currency, one might also consider the context of the size of the American economy. Compare military spending on a per capita basis or as a percentage of GDP and there are other states with higher percentages.
5
There is little difference in the positions of Dems and Reps in terms of foreign policy and military spending. The latter spends lavishly on things to fight the last war, not the next. China's stance is perhaps both understandable and alarming. Recent op-eds have spoken about the 'sitting duck' status of our billion dollar carriers opposing a new fleet of nimble and deadly missal boats being deployed by China. So much of the military budget is for pork barrel spending by another name. So much is not even accountable.
It would be refreshing if a policy from those not in thrall to the Dems or the GOP came up with a way not to spend lives and treasure wantonly in the pursuit of some politicians' need to check a box on their historical resume.
In addition, forcing our supposed beliefs on others, like human rights and workers' rights and democracy, should be done once we have put our own house in order. Ordering our own country would be more effective persuading others with soft power than another dozen tanks for whichever politician needs to be re-elected.
2
Prof. Bessner is addressing soft left ideals, as if we have a couple of hundred years to sort things out. Sure, we’ve violated international law but we can do better. That seems to be the tone of his essay. The common street criminal would like to see the country take a similar view to his/her offenses.
International law isn’t vague. Concerning our country’s most grievous offenses like invading Iraq, torturing, etc., it also violates US law, so a present call to take up cases against perpetrators would be in order.
3
Foreign Policy that focuses more on domestic issues?
There's a name for that and it isn't "Foreign Policy."
7
Daniel Bessner makes this comment: "At the same time, the left itself lacks institutions dedicated to developing foreign policy ideas. While Republicans and moderate Democrats have a host of think tanks pushing interventionism, no corporation or billionaire has yet decided to fund a left-wing foreign policy think tank to which politicians could turn for advice."
The comment is proved false by citing just ONE example: the Institute for Policy Studies in Washington, DC, which has, for decades, been a highly respected and very influential left think tank. Its founders included Marcus Raskin (father of Jamie Raskin), Richard Barnett, and Art Waskow. Prominent associates have included Orlando Letelier, Ralph Nader, Frances Fitzgerald, Saul Landau, Noam Chomsky, Richard Falk, Roger Wilkins, and many others.
Incidentally, it has been funded over the years by some very wealthy Americans.
Michael Anderson
San Anselmo, CA
6
There is only one way to be invincible - have no enemies.
Americans used to understand that making and keeping friends was a worthwhile foreign policy goal.
On the other hand, the priority for "leftist" Democrats is to get elected. Local issues speak louder to many citizens than what's happening in the South China Sea.
5
Like all progressives she has slogans, not solutions.
Case in point she supports a job guarantee. Well that's nice. Who will hire these people? What will they do? Who will pay for it?
The US has trade and budget deficits. We also have a crisis of toxic and substandard goods and labor being forced on us because of trade agreements and false-internationalism. It's a fact that other countries protect their labor and consumer markets. We do not, because our politicians are bought and paid for.
One way to encourage universal employment is by fostering strong demand for American workers. This can be accomplished by trashing idiotic trade agreements, pressuring foreign competitors, encouraging companies to invest in the US, lowering regulations, stemming the flow of labor immigration.
Perhaps if Ocasio-Cortez had not been brainwashed from an early age she would be a productive member of the right. There is still time for her to change her opinions.
6
@James No such thing as a "productive member of the right" only destructive members of the right. Those "idiotic trade agreements" among other things helped us maintain our economic leadership in the world. "Pressuring" and "encouraging" happens how? "Lowering regulations" so that we can live in a more polluted, oppressive society? Unfortunately, due to climate change we don't have much time.
3
@James
Wow. You accuse all progressives of having slogans, not solutions. Then you list the most common slogans of the Trump right as if they represent solutions. You did realize that "trashing idiotic trade agreements, pressuring foreign competitors, encouraging companies to invest in the US, lowering regulations, and stemming the flow of labor immigration" are only slogans, right?
2
It is past naive to fashion a foreign policy based on abstract aspirational goals and void of national self interest. It is an invitation to the Chinese to plunder the developing and undeveloped world.
9
Dan delivers an insightful column, and the short answer is:
That, unlike the rest of the supposed CFR 'Plot-Tank' foreign policy experts, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, at least knows that America should not be 'acting like a global Empire' abroad --- nor tyranny at home --- which puts her in synch with the late great Jewish intellectual, political philosopher, author of "On Revolution" and other prescient works, Hannah Arendt, who tried to warn her German people:
"Empire abroad entails tyranny at home". --- which they learned the hard way.
When Bessner states: "To be fair, there are good reasons leftists haven’t grappled much with foreign policy. For one, there are few decision makers from whom they can learn: Since the early days of the Cold War, foreign policy-making has been dominated by a bipartisan commitment to militarism and American hegemony" --- the only two words I would change at the beginning and end are, --- "To be (totally) fair", and 'Empire', instead of just "hegemony".
In this short column Bessner could not detail the foreign policy turning point, other than "the 1940's", but he correctly hints what Michael Glennon spends a book on, "National Security and the Double Government" --- which fully diagnoses the metastasis toward Empire in 1947, when the acronym soup of NCS, CIA, NSA were hatched in our government, and corporate 'think-tanks' (like Rand Corp, which was parodied as 'Bland Corp' in Kubrick and Sellers' fabulous 1963 anti-war film "Dr. Strangelove")
3
Ms. Cortez and others in the far Left of the Democratic Party misread the voters in believing that most Americans want socialism and the government controlling our lives, as well as the means of production and profit.
Although she received less than 20,000 votes the media has sought to portray Ms. Cortez's win in the primary as a game changer for the entire Democratic Party and in doing so are making a huge mistake that will solidify Trump's and the Republican Party's hold on the executive, judicial, and legislative branches of government.
The American public is sickened and disgusted by the mean spiritedness, cruelty, insults, and the demeaning and debasing of our norms and civility by the current totally unfit to be President individual currently occupying the White House.
This does NOT mean that the majority of voters, including Democratic voters, want socialism.
This does not mean that the majority of Democrats support the boycott and divestiture movement against the State of Israel as Ms. Cortez and those on the far Left support.
This does not mean that in order to have a more fair and equal society where each and every American has a chance to prosper that we must gut our nations military so we can afford to offer a free education and other freebies those on the Left support.
Ms. Cortez won but her views do not represent most Americans. Let's not make the mistake of taking a win of 20,000 votes to 16,000 votes and overplay the results as redefining America.
16
@Mark Jeffery Koch
Sorry Mark, but the majority of American voters already have "socialism" in one form or another.
Not being a far-Leftie myself, I suppose I should feel out of place with the unease I have at Israel's haughty and contemptuous treatment of all those around them, and my own country's slavish devotion to giving them whatever they ask for regardless of the boorishness and violence they inflict upon world.
As for gutting our nation's military, yeah, I'm for that.
Maybe, once we restore real civilian control and insist our politicians behave as if they have half a brain (each, by the way, not shared among them like it is now) I'd be willing to reconsider. But I doubt it.
If you want all the toys you have now, and maybe save a few hundred billion a year, maybe we could start with an agreement to root out corporate corruption and favoritism.
Alexandria is not advocating for the evil commie-pinko-lite socialism you boys dream about in your nightmares, she is advocating for a nation that cares for its people, and shepherds its human and social resources with an eye toward a better, more secure national future.
Speaking from the not-so-far Left, I'm good with that. Really, really good.
1
@Mark Jeffery Koch
You're exaggerating a number of points here, and echoing (perhaps unintentionally) some tired Fox News/Trump scaremongering.
Nobody on the politically viable left (there is no vote-getting "far left" in America) is actually in favor "the government controlling our lives." We just recognize that big business has been allowed to do exactly that over the last thirty years or so, and we would like state power--which enables at least some democratic input--to intervene rather than continue to view itself as a client of business interests. Nobody on the Dem party/left-independent spectrum is a Stalinist. Antifa, contra Trump's hysterical comments, is a tiny, powerless group that just happens to do street theater almost as well as he does.
Nobody on the politically viable left is advocating "gutting" the military. But Trump's absurd claim that it's been fatally weakened and needs a massive infusion of cash (just as the R tax cuts blow a 1.5T hole in the budget) is unacceptable.
None of us are looking for "freebies." We're just reasonably good at math, and wonder how other affluent countries can manage health care and education more economically and effectively than we can. The ACA was/is a doomed fake compromise, and a boon to the for-profit medical model. It's time for single payer.
Finally, as to the "far left is out of touch" theory, you're misunderstanding how big the voting bloc of millennials/gen Z really is. Demographics is political destiny.
1
@Mark Jeffe Your comment begins with an incorrect perception that Democrats want to control the "means of profit and production." That is what the GOP es. It has for decades, with its tax law greasing the wheels for Big Agro, Big Pharma, Big Energy and Big Finance. They treat actual labor with derision by favoring capital gains over actual wage earning. They hand out massive subsidies to the corporations that support their candidates and think tanks. They directly fund huge military-industrial behemoths. And they privatize everything they can touch, from healthcare to prisons to veterans' care.
The Republicans are the party that manipulates the economy for its own ends - not the voters' wishes. All the Democrats want is what the people want: protection from corporate degradation and the certain worse of health, age and climate change. It's the European model of Democratic Socialism, very different from Socialism. The difference isst
2
At the same time, I hear both that Russia's economy is the equivalent of Spain's, while a person with the military tells me that Russia could roll across Europe and we'd be powerless to stop them. The amount of waste in our military spending has to be staggering.
5
"...Few decision-makers from whom they can learn"? Come on, John Kerry and Hilary Clinton did excellent jobs while serving as secretaries of state under Obama - notwithstanding the smear campaigns the GOP has historically raised against both. It is not an accident that Putin devoted his disinformation apparatus to target Hilary in the last election. They both have superior understanding of the stakes at play in the international sphere.
And yes, there is something PollyAnna-ish about the emergent left in the Democratic Party. To me it gives reason to have a mixed Democratic ticket going forward: leftist + centrist. That is, if the Party wants to do things that stick.
And....newbies like Ms. Ocasio-Cortez (who is not running for President, I should note) need to start somewhere - to learn the interplay between their ideals and reality.
9
@Dye Hard
Well said, but maybe local or state level first. House of Representatives isn’t an entry-level job.
1
The Republicans have "learned" from Kissinger, Cheney, Rumsfeld and their like. Where have they gotten us?
1
The thrust of this piece is that the Left/Progressives/Liberals are disqualified because they focus on economic issues. Those are the issues that matter to most Americans. And we are still better off with a Democratic candidate that does not address the issue than a Republican with a reflexively malign and ill-informed opinion about the Paris climate accord, the Iran agreement and the idiotic tariffs.
4
Good article. The Democrats (or Democratic left, a term I wish would somehow be replaced) often sound at least superficial & disorganized, and at worst stupid--which is saying a lot since we're comparing with the Republicans. We need some intellectual leadership to map out a coherent Democratic (& bipartisan) foreign policy.
4
"The left," much less the "socialist left," wouldn't and won't be able to make the mostly sensible changes in our foreign policy (actually the article is focused only on the military side) mentioned here. Mike Bloomberg maybe could. Cf. Nixon recognizing China.
The disastrous over-reach of our military actions since 9/11 is one more instance of the failure of our two-party system with its weaknesses based on the electoral college, gerrymandering, and primaries that favor extreme candidates on both sides. The apotheosis of what Eisenhower named the "military-industrial complex" is now the witless dunce in the White House, pandering to his angry and witless base.
Whom the gods would destroy, they first make proud. American exceptionalism, anyone?
9
Military spending in the U.S. is largely driven by members of Congress who know that companies that produce weapons and the technology of warfare are major employers in their districts. Cutbacks in military spending mean job losses: and conversely, lucrative defense contracts are seen as bringing jobs and money into a district. Voters, including those who work in military production facilities, are aware of this, and so are congressional candidates. In addition, candidates who challenge the inflated military budget risk losing campaign contributions from “defense” contractors. As important as the issues raised in today’s editorial are, if we don’t get to the bottom of our country’s dependence on weapons production as our primary economic engine, military spending will continue to set the budget priorities of Congress.
7
Foreign policy is not the only issue about which younger, passionate candidates on the left fail to convince. I saw an interview between Ms. Ocasio-Cortez and Jake Tapper on CNN and was underwhelmed to say the least. When Tapper asked her to explain how she proposes paying for her 30 trillion dollar aspirational goals, she had no answer. In fact she was not especially articulate about any of her ideas. I want candidates like her to succeed, but they must know what they are talking about; they must have answers. Passion and enthusiasm are not enough. We keep hearing that "wonky" candidates won't earn voter support, but I am pretty sick of claims not supported by facts.
17
Bernie Sanders had no explanation for how he was going to pay for free everything- didn't seem to hold him back.
@dmdaisy
I agree wholeheartedly. And replying that everything will be paid simply by taxing the wealthy is not a valid reply.
In funding new goals, I'd love to hear exactly which current programs/spending would be eliminated, or which taxes would be raised. Of course providing specifics such as these would likely keep her or anyone from being elected, but it would be good to hear, regardless.
5
It appears that the voters of NY State have caught onto this, given the primary trouncing of the well meaning but clueless Cynthia Nixon by the practical Gov Cuomo.
1
I want to answer the question posed in the headline re the South China Sea. Candidates on the left should call out, mock, and ridicule China's boated claims of sovereignty over great swaths of international waters. More than that, they should be informing everyone about what China is doing to the South China Sea - digging it up and destroying reefs to build military islands and allowing its citizen fishermen to destroy other parts of the sea floor dragging for giant clam shells to sell to rich collectors. (I've heard Ivanka likes them for centerpieces) These things are unforgivable. It's not China's planet to destroy.
24
For a long time now, it seems that advanced education in history and foreign policy is no longer necessary for serving in the State Department. No wonder the same blunders keep repeating themselves in ever more dangerous places.
2
As much as I support the proposals here, military spending has become a proxy for "strength". Proposing to reduce military budget is a non-starter for either party because their political opponents will "weaponize" it.
1
Some of this is good (have congress step up to its responsibility in foreign affairs) but some of it is not. "Bring the troops home." From where? South Korea? Not yet. Europe--with Russia attacking Ukraine and threatening the Baltic NATO allies? Definitely not. I recommend education: read Foreign Affairs or Foreign Policy. Read history. Or, second best, listen to people who read, think about and write on foreign policy. Tune in to Fareed Zakaria's GPS. Avoid simplistic and erroneous policies like BDS (Boycott, Divest, Sanction Israel) and adopt more careful policies like boycotting and forbidding imports of products from products produced in Israeli settlements in the West Bank. This would go a long way to helping our new left politicians craft intelligent foreign policy.
4
@Mario D. Mazzarella
You do realize that when Soda Stream was boycotted for making products in the West Bank, hundreds of Palestinians lost their jobs. This is no way to conduct foreign policy.
I agree the American left needs a position on international policy. However, Ocasio-Cortez is wise to avoid strong positions on issues like Israel. Taking sides won't do her any favors in New York. The truth is the American left already has a position on international policy. The left only hates militarism in so far as Pentagon spending crowds-out domestic programs. The left's position in the South China Sea was the TPP.
In effect, we don't need the military because we can accomplish the same task economically without the expense. Just as safe but for less money. That is the American left's position on international policy. The problem of course was the Democratic center never sold the narrative. They never convinced the public the real goal was national security, not globalism. The TPP was introduced under a banner of liberal internationalism.
To the nationally minded worker, this was a huge faux pas. Globalism hurts and the scars run deep. The impact of the mistake are in the exit polls. If you want a slogan for the American left on foreign policy try: We are not seeking to dismantle the current international order; we are trying to find the American worker's place within it. That's the socialist's strong argument.
1
If you are an elected federal official who will be voting on foreign policy issues, you have an obligation to be knowledgeable about foregn affairs. The left has enjoyed poking fun at officials on the right for their candidates alarming lack of knowledge related to foreign affairs (and rightfully so). But you can't have it both ways - all of the federal officials who influence this country's place in the world should be up to speed on these issues, particularly in today's world where we have a reality tv star taking a super-confrontational approach to foreign affairs in an attempt to maximize his personal profit.
8
@Rich The difference where Ocasio-Cortez is concerned is she admits to not knowing this is the first step. Know what you don't know then the second step ask questions about what you don't know, learn. Far better than the believe and assume you're right of many polticians especially Republicans. Third have a basic set of ethics.
1
But why is this being directed at the "left"? Democrats generally have a firm and pragmatic grasp on foreign policy issues, and if new candidates don't they quickly educate themselves. Meanwhile, Trump cannot be bothered to learn or remember the most basic details of our alliances, and does not value them.
19
Global environmental responsibility should be its own category. The Paris accord deserves more than a passing mention as part of foreign policy. Wars of the future may well be fought over arable land and water.
3
I couldn't agree more with the professor's views on foreign policy. I don't know how anyone can view the humanitarian disasters of Viet Nam and Iraq perpetrated by the US Government and not wonder: "When did we opt to become the evil empire?" I became an independent voter over the US behavior across the globe. Libertarian and Green candidates are the only ones who do not join the chorus for military interventions. Both of the major parties are dominated by the military-industrial complex that Eisenhower foresaw and warned about.
The two parties are filled with frightened people--if someone in a position of authority tells them there is a danger on the other side of the planet, they're all in favor of sending our (always heroic) troops to protect us.
The rational and the moral arguments against our rampant military adventurism are buried under the fears whipped up by the major party political leaders. I think that to remove ourselves from the cycle of war will probably require a significant movement toward a third party, one that has not been bought by the war profiteers.
13
When was the last time Rand Paul emitted a peep about militarism? And what was Jill "Sheets Keep Down Chemicals" Stein doing with Mike Flynn and Putin at that RT dinner?
1
Key issues are avoided by this essay that are necessary for any coherent foreign policy . Mr. Bessner asserts that we should withhold military aid from states that violate human rights and that we should engage in peaceful diplomacy. But this doesn't address the issues in cases of humanitarian intervention. It is notable that the word 'Syria' appears no where in the essay. When there is a violation within a state of human rights on a massive , even genocidal level do we have an obligation to use military force to stop it? The Left has had conflicting intuitions . Prior to the Second World War the Socialist Party advocated neutrality regarding the threat of the Third Reich but then supported the war effort once the US was engaged. An American military presence in Rwanda could have saved hundreds of thousands of lives at little risk to this country. I know that the common response from the Left to raising the question of humanitarian intervention is to doubt the altruism of those who propose it. But if the Left itself were in a decision making position it would have to take a position regarding the balance of human rights against national sovereignty in a region like this. Another area not addressed concerns the proper response to the invasion of one state by another so as to alter boundaries. While it is easy to criticize the Second Gulf War the First Gulf War presents a dilemma. Claiming that the motivation there was just about oil is not itself a policy.
10
Ther was no "Socialist Party," circa 1940. There was the CPUSA. Which yes, emulated Stalin's disgusting policy.
The two are not the same.
2 points:
1. Wrangling over foreign policy is a peculiarly centrist and discredited political game.
The Trumpian revolution totally ignored foreign policy. Its base and drivers did not care about the issue. The Clintonite middle, on the other hand, was mired in foreign policy details.
2. There is a game of infantilizing the Left as pipe-dreamers and peaceniks that is a long American tradition. Ocasio-Cortez catches more of that due to her age and gender.
That game of infantilizing is also over. The writing is on the wall. Medicare for all, a livable wage, and an end of seemingly endless wars have never enjoyed more popular support than now.
22
By allowing itself to become a vehicle for Trumpism, the Republican Party has proven itself to have become infantilized and cannot be taken seriously,either in regard to domestic or foreign policy.
I would maintain that most of our Congressional representatives (both Dems and Reps) have minimal understanding of in-depth foreign affairs to the degree of not even being able to locate strategic countries on a map. They should all be provided with primers and regular briefings as required reading. Then again, they may never do so following the example of the ill-informed commander-in-chief who apparently finds them boring and only demands talking points.
Our national security merits a place in any candidate's platform. It just seems that voters tend to only focus on their domestic concerns. It might behoove candidates to weave together foreign policies on tariffs, for example with their repercussions for farmers or policies on international hotbeds which might send their children into harm's way.
Wake up America. You are not alone in the world.
7
My question is: Why is Ocasio-Cortez the progressive politician being held up and questioned here? She is 28. She doesn't yet hold office. She has no voting or policymaking record. If/when she holds office, it'll be in the House, too.
If you take issue with the progressive left's foreign policy (or lack thereof), why not examine Sanders or Warren? They're both Senators, for starters, they're both seasoned politicians, and they both have a history of policymaking and voting that could be substantively examined.
But I suspect that that would've proven more difficult for the author. It's almost as if this article is just continuing the troubling trend of the media using Ocasio-Cortez as a stand-in for the progressive left because she makes for a nice straw man to attack.
59
@Kevin
No aspiring politician should be unable to answer global policy questions. Being young, female, and a person of color is great, but it doesn’t excuse a basic lack of mentors. No one from whom to learn? Please, give me a break.
8
@Kevin
Give me a break. Ms Ocasio-Cortez is running to be able to make votes on these critical foreign policy questions.
1
Well, if the media is going to proclaim her the "new face of the Democratic Party", the least you can do is start seeing what exactly is there -- or not there -- behind the branding. No?
1
There is no need for the prejudicial term "socialism" to enter into
today's US politics. Because many democrats favor government sponsored health care for all, increased control of banks, free college tuition in state colleges and decreased military spending
there's no need to introduce that term.
6
@JFPThank you. This is a loaded term that inspires fear and panic in this country, while horrible, horrible countries like Canada, the UK, France, and most of Western Europe embrace these very features to their governmentally-provided social benefits. Clearly on the road to Stalinesque violence against individual liberties.
2
It’s called Democratic Socialism, such as Germany and many other European countries, but Democrats here cant seem to grasp taking control of language in politics.
This editorial's title smacks of man-splaining, cultural bias and political stereotyping. There are plenty of republican congressmen (and even a president) who likely know less about the South China Sea than Ocasio-Cortez - and are less willing to learn about it. Ocasio-Cortez is running to represent a very ethnically diverse district and is quite familiar with the foreign policy issues that affect her future constituents.
24
@gwr
Hilarious - this ticks off all the "usual suspects" of complaints when one doesn't like any criticism of a favored person or subject. And should the Times simply adopt a new policy that males can no longer write OpEds or express any opinion that may, in any way, touch upon the candidacy or actions of any female lest they be condemned with the absurd "mansplaining" charge??
3
Dr. Bessner outlines a really nice list of "shoulds". However, the Left needs to watch out for overly-simplified idealism. This list of "shoulds" is a start, road-map, a set of principles. I'd like to see left-leaning politicians give it life, not in mere rhetoric, but in thoughtfulness and pragmatism. Perhaps: turn our military might to build/rebuild communities? Take long-term views towards Africa in a non-exploitative frame? I'm not a foreign policy expert, but I am wary of idealism without sustainable action.
3
What does Prof. Bessner think about the South China Sea? Perhaps his questioning should be directed to the 435 sitting members of the House.
Would the professor advocate going to war with China to stop it from achieving strategic regional parity in the Western Pacific with the US? As he teaches in a school named after the "Senator from Boeing," one might infer the answer.
What is the "right wing" approach to the US world role? Since 1945 the US has led the evolution and management of a world system that has benefited global capitalism, especially financial institutions and multinational corporations. Not really "making the world safe for democracy." Maybe a serious conversation is needed about whether or not the US should maintain a world-wide military presence to support this global order.
It is typical of those who oppose a decent life for average Americans to create foreign monsters to divert attention from serious domestic issues. The professor undoubtedly has a good medical plan as part of his compensation at the university. Few people are so fortunate. An internally divided country, with many people in part-time and "gig" employment, working at low, often minimum, wages, and in fear of devastating medical costs, is not a sound basis for a strong foreign policy. It is so 19th century.
Why direct your question at a young, idealistic aspirant for public office? Did you ask it of Paul Ryan? What is it about social democracy that is so scary to you?
23
@San Ta
Why the House? Ms. Ocasio-Cortez represents a wide strain of thought in the American political psyche, shared by both the so-called left and the so-called right - isolation. Unfortunately, the US has ALWAYS been part of the wider world and has always had to interact with it one way or another. The Soviets were an existential threat but seeing communists everywhere was foolish. Since 1991, the US has had no real foreign policy except a militarized Cold War containment policy with no rival power to contain. I would go on but this space is limited. Just remember there is real violence in the world.
To be fair, Ocasio-Cortez won the primary with a fraction (albeit) majority of democratic voters in her district.
Her current influence in the main stream media is outsized.
Should she win in November, she will be quire junior in the house of representatives.
Having said that, she represents the concerns of many in her district as do most members of congress.
3
The author clearly does not understand Congress’s role in American foreign policy. Based on State Dept Foreign Service Officer Test, only the administration can set the policy. Congress only has a monitoring role.
4
After Trump, who knows nothing and doesn't care what he doesn't know, can any candidate be considered too uninformed? I will take someone like Ocasio-Cortez, who is open to listening and weighing facts but always has one goal in mind: serve her constituents. Isn't that better than someone who knows very little and refuses to listen to anyone? Whos opinions were formed generations ago and haven't evolved?
5
The Right and Center would have to have a credible and fruitful foreign policy legacy for this piece to make a lick of sense .
They’ve both made a hash of our foreign policy spreading mayhem and violence , aggravating instability and costing us trillions of dollars we could be using supporting a country and quality of life worth defending.
3
Excellent! Daniel Bessner for Secretary of State.
Eisenhower warned us and the disastrous, unjust, unwanted wars in Vietnam, Iraq and Afghanistan confirmed that the militarists have way to much power and will exercise it no matter what the cost and harm to humanity.
Especially important is the call for accountability. That we allow war criminals to walk freely among us despite their lying casus belli and the unwarranted waste of trillions of dollars and destruction of cities, nations and lives is the worst failure of the rule of law of the 21st century so far. And it will go down in history as one of the greatest injustices of all time.
3
I take exception to the statement that left-wing politics, at its heart, is about giving more power to ordinary people. It is just the opposite. Left-wing politics is about taking power away from ordinary people through a powerful centralized government that makes decisions for ordinary people that they are too "ignorant" to make for themselves.
7
Beyond good intentions, backbone is built on a knowldege base. Dangerous times with the raw materials for crafting "bridges over troubled waters" missing... perhaps on foreclosure.
1
While I agree with most everything Professor Bessner suggests for a good American foreign policy, I only comment that Donald Trump has demonstrated that having a coherent foreign policy has little or nothing to do with getting elected. Asking Ocasio-Cortez to have thoughtful answers about foreign policy, a subject over which she is unlikely to have any influence even after she is elected as a freshman, Minority Member of Congress, is unrealistic and unwise. It will only get her in trouble with the foreign policy gurus, who will attack her for being out of the mainstream, shallow, ignorant, and wrong. Better to just leave it aside for now. (See the comment from alocksley, below, who ignores the fact that she does not claim to have any answers - how much worse if she actually ventured an opinion on the Middle East, where no one agrees on the right US policy!)
3
Why are the author's opinions on foreign policy directed to the party out of power instead of to the GOP and the president?
3
A very risky game for the left. Yet no risk no result.
2
One major battle at a time please, and don't forget, a significant part of the electorate is batty.
To get elected, one needs both an outpouring of support and money from friends, and then one needs to garner a few crossovers, people who are fed up with their own party's nominee.
If one dives into all the issues at once, one risks giving the opposition issues to coalesce around, and one risks alienating one's own base. There is little that one can talk about regarding the Israeli-Palestinian conflict that is anything but alienating and dark.
No, writing as a lefty, I wish the socialist candidates to walk gingerly around topics like war and the Middle East, and our own insane involvement in the centuries old civil wars in the Middle East. Most everything in this article is true and reasonable, but hey, the electorate chose the loud mouthed, unprofessional, incompetent, ignorant, Donald Trump to led this nation, so maybe one needs to mix in rational caution into the talking points. The left cannot talk "convincingly about foreign affairs" within this superheated political climate.
And yes, waking to a rational, intelligent American posture on wars, invasion, treaties, and professionals doing the work...
I haven't had that privilege since we destabilized and invaded South Vietnam.
Hugh Massengill, Eugene Oregon
Bernie "I honeymooned in the Soviet Union" Sanders has been on the Russian payroll for decades longer than Donald J Trump.
His assignment is the same: sow chaos and diminish American democratic institutions.
His naive sycophants have been led to believe that the only legitimate function of government (one never alluded to in the US Constitution) is to take wealth from those who produce it and give to those who do not.
2
I don't remember this type of article when all the Tea Party candidates were running for office. Oh, yeah, there were mostly male so they automatically understood the complexity of foreign policy. Since the new left has a stronger representation of women, being critical of their understanding of foreign policy is sexism at it's worse.
4
Democrats should listen to and follow the advice of John Mearsheimer of the University of Chicago. Realism not liberal hegemony should be the basis of our foreign policy.
2
Before you go riding off with vast generalizations and telling us what these newly chosen for state office “should or would” do about this, that or the other thing internationally, perhaps you ought to provide a definition of democratic socialism. I have a friend who “accused” me of being one and I looked at HIM as if he’d grown another nose. My views haven’t changed and he couldn’t provide me with a definition either! And don’t get ahead of your labeling: not many, if any, of these new electeds will be members of anything but local state office like Ocasio- Cortez, in which office they are unlikely to make decisions about any of the “issues” you think the public should get exercised about now. This column seems to me to be PR masquerading as political opinion.
2
Just as Sarah Palin was clueless when it came to foreign policy, world geography, and world history, Ocasio-Cortez, the darling and media sensation of the "Democratic Socialists" is the same. As far as I am concerned she reflects the shallowness of her supporters. This is the kind of candidate you get when only 20% of the eligible voters show up to vote. Sad, very sad.
16
And on the evidence, even sadder is what you get when you elect a clown by 75, 000 votes scattered across several states.
It would be interesting to find out whether Trump or Palin is more ignernt of the world. My money's on the President.
1
Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez recently dismissed questions about the Israel-Palestine conflict by claiming she was “not the expert on geopolitics on this issue.”
No one in politics -- certainly not in New York -- dares to criticize Israel's decades-long mistreatment of the Palestinians. It's a simple fact of political life. That Ocasio-Cortez dodged the question is actually a step in the right direction, given that it would normally be a given that a New York politician would express full support for Israel, whatever that country might do.
2
It's pretty clear that Trump and the socialist Democrats share a common opinion on one aspect of foreign policy. Both are leery of the US continuing as the policeman for the world and as a result dragging the federal budget down with massive defense spending. If the socialists had their druthers, I think that their model for the US armed forces would be Canada.
Just as many writers for the New York Times have implied that right wing figures in the EU will be a source of ideas and policy positions for right wing figures in the US (and vice-versa), it is up to self-described "progressives" in the US to show how they will not emulate, and borrow policy positions from left wing parties abroad, such as the UK's Labour party, currently headed by Jeremy Corbyn.
2
If I remember right once Sarah Palin was asked a question during the elections and she did not know Africa was a continent, this is a problem when candidates appeal to a special group they tend to look past their short comings . This goes for both sides better we take a long hard look to make sure the candidate is qualified to make hard decisions that is in the best interest for everyone in our nation not just their base.. Yes Ms Cortez is very appealing to her base and so was Ms Palin but shouldn't Ms Cortez has some kind of understanding of the situation in the Middle East one of the most important and volatile reagins in the world.
1
I beg to differ. Before these socialists branch out into foreign policy they need to get a dose of reality about their domestic proposals.
Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez was recently asked by Jake Tapper to explain how her proposals for domestic spending could be paid for. A liberal group had estimated that they would cost 40 trillion over the next decade while her proposal to raise taxes on the rich would only raise 2 trillion.
Her response? She said people needed healthcare, which she saw up close because she was working as a waitress a year ago and did a "survey" of other people working with her. Tapper asked again. Got the same answer. Tapper responded in frustration that he guessed he wasn't going to get an answer. Join the club, Jake.
I'm not too interested in her, or Sanders' ("I love Venezuela!") views on the military, the South China Sea, North Korea, etc. etc.. I'm also not too interested in my 7-year-old grandson's views on the military, etc., although he'd probably have the sense to admit he didn't know.
16
@Dan,
We already pay twice as much per capita for healthcare than the “socialist” countries that cover everyone and have much better outcomes. The difference is that we waste money on insurance company profits, high drug prices that support the countries that negotiate for ressonable ones, and the whole system that is required by physicians and hospitals to fight with insurers for payments.
I would rather pay some fraction of what I pay to an insurance company in taxes that will go to actual healthcare. I do admit that many Democrats are, for unclear reasons, not good an explaining this.
7
@Gerry So, your response, like that of Ocasio-Cortez, is that we are going to save 38 trillion dollars over the next 10 years by having insurance that covers everybody?
You are doing what she did--focusing on one thing that you believe would (or might) be better (and with comparisons with countries that are not like ours in many ways), to ignore the basic issue: Socialists can't pay for it. Can't even come close. And seem clueless about it. Well, the rest of the country isn't.
To refer back to my 7-year-old grandson, we recently took him shopping for a toy. He had a certain amount to spend from his allowance. Even he realized that he could only spend up to what he brought in. He had $10, and bought a $9 toy---not a $90 one.
1
And your plans for addressing the 50% of costs that are caused by our own ibesity, poor diet, lack of exercise? How about the costs of our demanding pills and surgery to address this stuff?
1
Mr. Bessner is confused, it seems--about what the Left is all about. He states:
"Left-wing politics is, at its heart, about giving power to ordinary people".
I'd love to know how much power "ordinary people" have in Venezuela, or in Cuba, or North Korea. The left is all about government control--in its various stages. If anything, it wants "ordinary people" to be surfs--dependent upon government for all of their important needs--from health care, to primary education, to retirement, to food, housing, the workplace and higher education. It wants to control nearly every aspect of your life. Essentially, it is paternalism, bordering on slavery.
If it all worked, it would be great--but it never does. Every single democrat-inspired dream--from Social Security, to Medicare/Medicaid, SSDI, Pell Grants, Federally guaranteed student loans, etc., is all over-subscribed and teetering on the edge of insolvency. Liberal solutions are always at hand, however--just raise taxes and contribute more.
This idea that the Left is "of the people", is a myth. The overwhelming feeling of liberal politicians and pundits, is that the vast majority of citizens are not sufficiently intelligent to navigate life--and a big nanny state is the answer. Hillary's "deplorables" comment neatly sums up the liberal take on the intelligence of our citizenry.
Ronald Reagan was right, the most dangerous 9 words in the English language are: "I'm from the government and I'm here to help".
6
Th e problem is not right or lrft, the problem is that Sanders wing (not the leftist) are focused mainly on the economic disparity between the rich and the poor, a class warfare. Most middle of the road, even liberal minded people like me are more than that. Even if you tax the rich heavily and make it free t the poor, there will not be enough money to serve everyone. And it will destroy any incentive to do better. I speak from experience. As a son of a teacher in India, I studied heard to study engineering, came to the US, studied to get a Ph.D., got a job in Bell Labs and bought my first house, the first one in my extended familyies of uncles and aunts to own a home. There needs to be an incentive to do better (not necessarily to become rich). But I have never forgotten that the world is interconnected And the sandersites should understand that. A conflict between Japan and China, India and Pakistan, Israel-Palestaine, our dependence upon Arab Oil does affect not only the ich people but also poor people. Reparations on Germany after first world war and the fake science of Eugenics gave us WWII and it can hapen again. And I do not expect a "common man" to comprehend the cmplexities of international implications. I have always voted for Democrats but I am not sure about Snadersites.
3
Stop trying to rule the world ! That’s my foreign policy advice to AOC . We have no business in the South China Sea . We have over 800 overseas military bases ;China and Russia zilch.
Take care of the home front with infrastructure spending , Medicare for all, improve education, jobs program .
It used to said if we don’t invade Nicaragua they will invade us . The same with Vietnam , Iraq , etc . Hogwash !
2
@Howard Kaplan
Actually China has at least one base in Djibouti, the Chinese People's Liberation Army Support Base (right next door to an American base), and probably has basing rights in a number of countries where they have made investments. China is looking to expand its presence in the Indian Ocean: https://www.lowyinstitute.org/the-interpreter/chinas-new-network-indian-....
Russia has bases in Armenia, Belarus, Georgia (the breakaway South Ossetia), Syria, (multiple air bases and a naval facility), Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Moldova, Tajikistan, and occupied Ukraine (Crimea).
The US has 38 bases around the world, not counting "lily pads" of fewer than 200 troops. The 800 number is an exaggeration, taken from an avowed opponent to the military.
Here’s the basic reality Americans need to grapple with: when they say ‘foreign policy’ they don’t actually mean foreign policy....they mean war policy, and nothing besides.
Not having well thought-out war plans is not necessarily a bad thing. Fellow lefties should call out the mainstream press on their unending pro-war bias, and then develop pro-peace initiatives and positions.
5
Want a policy about the South China Sea? Here's a simple start: The U.S. should not think about the region in terms of an American imperial shift to Asia, as the Obama group put it. Respect the competing interests of other people in the region. This is not a place that should be another pawn in an American game of world domination. Forget the business about being the world's sole superpower. As pre-school children are taught, learn to play with others and to share the toys. Not everything has to be controlled by us. This is a beginning to a more reasonable policy than the policies developed by the right-wing think tanks and more reasonable than the policies developed by the military/industrial wing of the Democrats. Stop thinking that we have to carry the biggest stick to bully others into doing our bidding.
"Reducing this military footprint, and thus lessening the havoc the United States wreaks abroad, must be a priority for the left."
Preposterous. The American military presence all over the world has been the most effective, beneficent guarantor of world peace in history. Without our presence and influence, regional strife would erupt across the globe.
The 2003 invasion of Iraq was an idiotic, avoidable blunder resulting in widespread death and strife fifteen years on. It does not follow, then, that every intervention is bad.
America must look forward while taking to heart lessons of the past, and America must not withdraw where its presence is necessary to ensure regional peace. So, for example, that is why China's island-building must be halted and the Chinese must be removed from them. Otherwise, it is the re-militarization of the Rhineland and the annexation of Czechoslovakia all over again. China's view is that might makes right; America's view is that International Law makes right.
6
@NorthernVirginia
Reducing our footprint does not mean withdrawing from needed regions, nor a retreat from where our strength ensures peace.
That said, our track record for intervention even outside Iraq and Afghanistan is poor the past 15 years.
Are you suggesting we start a war over China’s island building? That would be as foolish as our recent debacles.
The fact remains: we can’t maintain our current military spending levels and expect to have decent social programs, infrastructure, and equitable opportunities domestically.
We could cut our spending in half and still be the most dominant military in the planet. It’s time to make choices for our citizens.
1
@John
"Are you suggesting we start a war over China’s island building?"
Yes. We, and our allies, need to enforce International Law and, if necessary, resort to war. That is why you see the US, UK, and Japan performing freedom of navigation exercises, sailing warships into the areas illegally occupied by China. China is acting like the Barbary Pirates, and though you may perceive us to be over-extended, China needs to be pushed out of that area.
I agree that Democrats go with the flow on foreign policy. I remember writing to Obama about his use of drones that killed innocent bystanders, that he was seeding a future crop of enemies to fight our children. And then I gave up, thinking that if he, as the progressive president, saw fit to do this, the military-industrial complex would stay fully entrenched. I hope that the younger voters who have become politically active, will begin to dismantle this war obsessed policy, and restore America to a country working for peace, not conquest or dominion.
Having just finished Christopher Clark's "The Sleepwalkers", about the run up to WWI, which describes the total failure of the diplomats, politicians and generals to even begin to understand the cataclysmic consequences of their words and actions; and having seen the repeated failure of U.S. foreign policy over the last 100 years (by which I mean all the governments we've overthrown, all the elections we've meddled in, all the wars of choice that we've fought- every single one of which actions has backfired), I have to think that
leaving it to the 'experts' is as futile as leaving it to the 'man on the street.' (No, I'm not suggesting that the man on the street could do any better - but certainly could do no worse).
(Same thing in finance by the way).
1
The American people made their voices heard loud and clear when they elected Donald Trump as President. They don't care about foreign policy and they want America to focus on issues at home. The voters said that we are suckers for spending our money overseas and that we should bring all of our troops home. The people believe that we have not invested any money in America over the past forty years is because it all goes overseas. They want our focus and our money brought home. And then Donald Trump got elected and did just the opposite.
For political purposes the liberals are right to ignore questions on foreign policy, especially since this election is a mid-term election and not a Presidential election.
4
Good points here Mr. Bessner.
But, at the same time, to maintain a clear focus on domestic questions, without distraction, has a clear value.
Even more so now.
The questions you have considered here, are more or less, part of the standard equipment of a good government, and will be for whoever gets elected.
But, for me, it is more important to rethink this dumb abolition of the Immigration and Customs Enforcement.
The world that we all face in the future, with continental famine, limited resources, regional conflicts like Syria, does not by any measure suggest that we cease to apply controls to the critical concern of immigration.
We can reform it, we can change the atmosphere of enforcement, we might even have a Congress after November that will legislate improvements to our system.
But we should not pretend that it is not an absolute need.
"Candidates and policymakers alike should educate the public about the United States’ relative safety."
Exactly... exactly to this entire article... especially the focus on military spending. It's madness that we're down 19 trillion dollars over 17 years, in a war against a couple thousand people who are 1/3 as dangerous to us as our own police force... stats that include those lost on 9/11 and those in service fighting over seas.
I keep telling everyone who will listen, that the 9/11 guys won. They didn't just want to kill a couple thousand people... they wanted to change America... and they changed the world. It didn't just happen to America... that day millions of kids sat around watching that horror unfold on TV, world wide... and behind them their parents were discussing it... it didn't matter if those conversations were liberal or conservative, the connection was made... something bad happened and foreigners were responsible... now those kids are all reaching voting age and becoming politically active, at the same time we are seeing a world wide rise in nationalism and immigration bigotry...
We handled all of this, all wrong. And there has been a ton of profiteering...
1
American foreign policy these past 2 decades has been an unmitigated disaster due to belligerence and ignorance. Trillions of dollars and millions of lives wasted in foolhardy military adventurism that has laid waste to nation states and nurtured radicalism and blowback. We have exported more terror than anyone else on the planet.
No lessons have been learned. We are still in Afghanistan, to what end nobody knows. We are still supplying the Saudis with arms to commit genocide in Yemen. We are still covertly plotting interventions, this time Venezuela. Our one-sided support for Israel has become even more one-sided.
The foreign policy establishment should be on bended knee begging the American public for forgiveness, not writing lofty dismissive op-ed pieces disparaging those whose instincts around non-intervention in the post 9/11 world have been proved historically correct. Presidents Gore and Sanders would not have weakened our treasury, security and moral authority the way presidents Bush, Obama and now Trump have done and will continue to do.
4
"We can bring our troops home and cut the military budget because the United States doesn’t face any serious external challengers." This was the attitude that put a bunch of unprepared American soldiers in the sights of North Korean tanks in July of 1950 rather than trained, ready troops with unpleasant results. I agree that Iraq was an injustice and Afghanistan needs to be left to Afghanies at this point but the idea that we don't face any serious challengers is just silly and naive. There be tigers in the world who would love, love, love for us to do what the author suggests. Granted the Chinese aren't going to storm the California coast anytime soon but they might invade Taiwan. Are we supposed to walk away from the Taiwanese? Russia isn't going to roll into Washington anytime soon but they might just roll into Riga if we appear weak. Are we supposed to walk away from NATO? Unfortunately, we need a strong military that can handle war with a "peer" in order to deter such a war. Otherwise, we may learn the unpleasant lesson that democracies seem to always learn at the start of big wars "Oh, we didn't think this was going to happen and we aren't ready. Again."
3
"What Does Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez Think About the South China Sea?"
I'd be shocked if Donald Trump knew more about the South China Sea than that it's made of water, so let's not yell fire in the theater just yet because somebody from the "far left" is running for congress.
Cheney and Bush had very concrete thoughts about foreign policy, and it didn't seem to help them all that much.
Bush, instead of consulting his father, GHWB, told us in a smug, terrifying way that he relied upon his "higher father" to make decisions about war in the middle east.
This column is a preposterously ridiculous straw man argument.
7
Using Ms. Ocasio-Cortez to prove any point other than arrogant ignorance does little to advance the author's point. While claiming she's "not the expert on geopolitics" is an admirably candid response, isn't it an odd one from a candidate who boasts a degree in economics and "international relations"? Can one suggest a more enduring and widely known issue than that of peace in the Middle East, Israel, the Palestinians, etc.? Was this a mail order degree or did she actually read ANY history and learn anything?
Perhaps the truth lies in fearing to cross one too many lines. While suggesting "free" everything appeals to a certain demographic, perhaps her equally leftist views on the Israel-Palestinian conflict would simply raise too many eyebrows and hackles, thus feigning ignorance is just easier. But she shouldn't be let off the hook on that issue or any other.
Ms. Ocasio-Cortez, sadly, represents that segment of candidates who think idealism, informed or otherwise, is a valid substitute for real world knowledge of issues and history, and the ability to take a stand based on a reasoned position, not popular talking points from campus.
4
This is a brilliant essay filled with excellent suggestions that, if implemented, would vastly improve the quality of life throughout the world.
The reason they won't be lies in the section "Anti-militarism," namely corruption. "Almost half of our military budget goes to private corporations that squander our tax dollars..." and have no intention of giving up the gravy train. These are the people who hate a big government when it helps people but love a big government that awards billion dollar "defense" contracts. And they have spread the gravy across as many congressional districts as possible, thus ensuring that their calls are returned in Washington.
This is the military-industrial complex. It is extremely rich, extremely powerful, and extremely entrenched. This is the true deep state ( a term that has recently been hijacked and turned upside down.)
Democrats would do well to heed Mr. Bessner's advice!
3
Bring in Bill and Hillary Clinton, Madeleine Albright,John Kerry, and Jane Harmon.
These people are renowned world wide experts in foreign policy.
Hence there is no shortage of advisors, teachers, in the Democratic party, left,right or center for the next generationn of politicians in the party.
Ironic that with Hillary we could have had a President with amazing experrtise both on the home front and in foreign affairs.
But too many Democrats chose not to vote. 54% versus 60% in previous 4 elections .
Hopefully lesson learned will be manifested in November
The Left-leaning tend to judge American foreign policy by its failures only. (Vietnam! Iraq! Afghanistan!)
Consider the possibility that allies on different continents may have a more nuanced understanding of U.S. foreign policy and appreciation for its successes--or non-messes, which is often the best one can hope for in the circumstances--than many of the incoming crop of Democrat lawmakers.
Assuming the next administration will be headed by a Democrat, the president will probably follow the same learning curve that Obama did, and take a prudent centrist position in the use of American power. (Which one suspects the U.S. will continue to wield cautiously, despite two idealistic and yet contradictory Democrat impulses--which is to give up power and at the same time "save" others.
2
so many rich targets in this op ed. Anyways let's highlight this one:
"The left should also commit itself to reducing global economic inequality by reordering the hierarchical relationships that benefit rich countries over poor ones."
Trump was in large part elected because of policy that actually started to do this in many parts of the world (i.e. China, eg) So if you want Fascism here at home as a response to the continue decimation of the middle class here this is an excellent policy.
Also, it is not correct to say that the world is a nice place and if we just close military shop around the world, we and the world will be safer (See despots globally.)
5
The "wins" for American foreign policy ended with the Korean war - and has been a series of questionable actions since then. The Soviets propped up murederous left-wing dictators (Pol Pot, Cambodia, All of Eastern Europe), so the US interventionists propped up murderous right-wing dictators (Videla in Argentina, Pinochet in Chile, most of South and Central America). The Soviets invaded Afghanistan to support their front man, so the US interventionists invaded Panama ... and on and on it went.
In recent times, the useless invasion of Iraq and the screw up in Afghanistan by Bush Jr. at the expense of blown up national debt showed what fiscal conservatism" is really about.
And then Trump coming in with non-interventionist promises tapping into the public mood ... without actually having the foresight, the policy support OR the ability for impulse-control - making non-interventionism a pipe dream yet again.
Yet, the public appetite remain strong in US for a less militaristic foreign policy, less bravado, less moral-policing. The question still remains whether US interventions create a more just/ more peaceful world or just a more chaotic one?
So, a non-interventionist left-of-center foreign policy is very welcome indeed.
1
@AC sure. But that's not what he wrote.
I agree in general with the author's views on foreign policy. I find really troubling his misuse of the word "socialist", which only confuses the policy and political discussion. Socialism implies "socialization" of private property and of the "means of production", which is not at all what they advocate. Rather, they stand for "social democracy", which aims to use the resources of the state, including taxation, to promote the well-being of all citizens. I am surprised that an academic like Mr. Bessner would get so sloppy.
14
@James Mr. Bessner was not sloppy and did not use the term "socialist" incorrectly.
Ms. Ocasio-Cortez has publicly acknowledged that she is a member of, and is financially supported by, the Democratic Socialists of America, whose tenets include turning over the means of production to workers and implementing a mass redistribution of wealth (yes, classic Marxism/Communism).
If you doubt this, please do your homework and check out the DSA website.
1
If asked, Ocasio-Cortes would answer that the South China Sea was a tiki bar in Queens.
10
And our president would respond: “Yes, been there. Horrible drinks. Sad!”
While I do agree with some of the suggestions put forth here, the critical issue is the Democrats staggering lack of knowledge and experience in a coherent foreign policy. Ms Cortez knows nothing, and is able to convince her supporters -- much in the way Trump...and Lenin...did, that she has answers, when in fact she knows nothing. Involving people like her in foreign policy decisions is the most dangerous thing we could do.
21
@alocksley
More dangerous than the foreign policy "experts" who led us to failure in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Vietnam?
2
@alocksley
I guess that we should be thankful that we have Jared Kushner.
1
Very similar to the way the current White House occupant told us “I alone can fix it” when he didn’t have a clue about the nature of the problems he claimed he could fix.
Those suggestions are all fine and won't happen. The Trump administration has driven anti-democratic policies so far to the extreme right that it will take, at best, several election cycles to move that branch back even to the center. But return power to Congress? Have you seen Congress do anything in the last 8 years worthy of more power? We will always have Republicans there, no matter how great a wave, willing to subvert and obstruct any moves leftward.
The fundamental flaw in the founders' vision for America may be a reliance on the wisdom of common people. Expressed via politics, 50% or more don't even vote...how wise is that? And of those that do, at least 40% are susceptible to Republican extremists' anti-democratic fear-mongering and the worship of money above all values, including democratic values. How to have hope that their version of "wisdom", which we suffer every day now under their cult leader, will remedy such inhumane effects as they celebrate?
I do not pretend to know the best way to improve our system -- wholesale upheaval is not it, in my opinion, as the "shock doctrine" comes into play when systems fail -- and under our Constitution there is almost no possibility of substantial change. I wish there were realistic alternatives, but haven't seen any.
“The best argument against democracy is a five-minute conversation with the average voter.” Politically incorrect, yes, but maybe Churchill was aware of something we work hard to ignore.
8
@fairwitness. Great idea. Just allow ordinary liberals to vote. Good luck. I’m sure that is constitutional.
Every candidate need not be an expert but should have an informed option on all aspects of foreign affairs. It isn't that difficult if one is interested in a globalized world. Whatever one does in an elected office will need to know something of this subject in order to effectively represent a constituency. I sense however that most Americans pay little heed or have little interest in this important issue witness the dearth of articles in small local newspapers. It is not necessary for political parties to educate so much as to promote the foreign policies of a national party as part of their respective platforms. From there the public will have a sense of what is to be done and why.
1
Kudos to Dr. Bessner for doing in his op-ed exactly what op-eds are supposed to do: pose an important question and kick off a debate. Dr. Bessner's recommendation of a highly restrained foreign policy is one vision of a liberal foreign policy--but there are of course others. Centrist Democrats will push back that the goal of preserving a "US-led liberal international order" advances liberal goals by maintaining and growing a zone of peace, free trade, and human rights; and preserving this order requires high defense spending, alliances, and a global base network. Whether that foreign policy is still affordable, effective, or ethical relative to Dr. Bessner's vision should be the crux of the debate.
2
Some interesting ideas, and it's certainly true that the left have neither a coherent foreign policy agenda nor heavyweight advocates of global stature - where are the likes of a Richard Holbrooke when you need them?
But I was struck by this: "While there are admittedly serious global threats, none are existential and none are unmanageable." The writer does not regard climate change as an existential threat that has shown any sign of being manageable? Seriously? I disagree. I regard the effects of climate change as being the granddaddy of global existential threats, not only for our times, but for all of recorded history. Moreover, it is clear that not only is it not being managed, but that nobody even has a plan for how to manage it. This problem is essentially one of global leadership and cooperation where the US could (and I would argue, should) have a huge impact if it were so minded. The problem is of a scale to become a core principle of a modern, humane foreign policy along with democracy, human rights, etc (and the interplays should be obvious). And, for anyone so minded, stop with the canards about "loss of competitiveness". What if the US were to invest some significant fraction of the Pentagon budget into new programs and technological research to address climate change, and to give the counteraction of climate change priority in policy and treaties?
2
@cjw, are you suggesting that there's a military solution to climate change? The author was clearly discussing conventional military threats in this context. Or have you simply willfully misunderstood the whole thrust of the author's argument and suggestions in order to beat your own drum? Because, in fact, the solution you propose is exactly in line with what the author is suggesting.
If Ms. Cortez demurs on answering the question about the Israeli-Palestinian, I wonder where she has been living for the past decade. To fail to answer even in the most basic view is troubling, because as a member of Congress, she's going to be faced with voting on issues regarding the Israel-Palestinian conflict. And not just votes, but dealing with President Trump's bias when it comes to issues and countries in the Middle East. Domestic issues also take precedence over foreign affairs, bread and butter matters most. But you can't live in a vacuum. The elections this year can be a great opportunity for left leaning politicians to re-shape foreign policy.
5
@GMT
The Progressive left has lost its ability to conduct foreign policy -- outside of the US; largely because of an irresponsible immigration policy. Domestically, it also struggles, nominating candidates that prefer the South China Sea --- in the Winter, but the North in Summer.
2
Thank you for broadening my mind, putting words to concepts and realities. Yes, the Democrats must embrace foreign policy with the same commitment and values that we bring to the domestic table. For Democrats, our core value is a commitment to the common good as the basis of a democracy. If that value informed our foreign policy........we’ll, imagine that.
2
Perhaps a candidate for the Think Tank for developing position papers for the left on foreign policy issues could be The Sanders Institute in Vermont.
3
The real left has always had a clear position on foreign policy, in one word: anti-imperialism. Those who are looking for positions as politicians have to be very careful when they speak. They are what someone called "the extreme center".
9
A leftist approach to foreign policy is not only essential, it is a political opportunity to combat the right wing, which itself has no foreign policy beyond bellicose talk and yearly increases in the Pentagon budget.
Further, any leftist approach to foreign policy should be explicitly tied in with man-made climate change, which itself must be framed as a national security issue. Indeed, our intelligence community has already framed it that way.
This would be another opportunity for the left to take on the right, whose own energy strategy could be summed up in one sentence: let polluters pollute!
25
@Vesuviano Excellent post!
You had me until I got to the section on threat deflation. Until Trump became president the US was mostly a force for stability in the world. Yes there have been colossal blunders in Vietnam and Iraq but when the US steps back bad actors push forward. The conflict in Yugoslavia could have been stopped long before it was. We really should have taken out Assad's air force when he first used it to deploy chemical weapons. The US really must send more troops to Europe to push back on Putin. That said there should also be better mechanisms other than the military to stop atrocities like the genocides in Rwanda and Myanmar. We need to find a way to show that those who commit these crimes will inevitably face swift justice so that when a UN envoy shows up to investigate atrocities he or she is treated as a powerful law enforcement agent rather than a pleading diplomat. Perhaps the left can come up with new ideas and policies on how to do this.
31
Stability? Iraq, Libya, Syria, Afghanistan, Ukraine are the examples of this stability.
1
@JS The threat in Yugoslavia was Not admitting the 1400 yrs of Islamic Invasions,murders & abduction of people for use as slaves. Since The Black Sea businessmen have supported & colluded w Islamic armies while they murdered millions.1910-1920 President Wilson looked the other way while Turks committed genocide on Christians.Armenians Greeks & Assyrians were massacred more than 2 million died in order for Rockefeller to extract oil from the Black sea.THAT genocide gave Hitler the idea the US was a paper tiger & wouldnt stop the Nazis from their genocide of the Jews.
Fast forward to 1971,Pakistan w US Navy help murdered 3 million + in East pakistan .Hindus,Buddhists,Christians & Moslems that refused to be islamic murderers were killed in a bloodletting that most likely sent the Rohingas fleeing into Burma.No one would question the right of Pre Colombian inhabitants to defend their lands against Spanish & English invaders & we shouldnt support the wrong sides either.
This article brings up lots of great issues - if not great solutions.
1. The point of reducing defense spending is clear. The linked Peterson foundation reference is worth studying. Where's the justification for so much spending? Accountability is difficult in terms of national security but worth pursuing.
2. Global trade and influence can go a long way towards offsetting defense spending. This is surely China's strategy and ours for much of the last 60 years (though we did not offset defense spending, we simply added to it).
3. Politically, it's always been easy for conservatives to attack the doves on the left as being soft on anti american aggression. The Left needs a more cogent counter argument than what Sanders offers. There needs to be a balance between national security and crazy military - industrial complex expansion.
4. The Left needs to make the national debt an issue of national security. Our growing debt and aging demographics make the future particularly bleak. And who holds our debt? Largely China, Saudi and Japan.
The Republicans have abandoned the mantle of fiscal conservatism. The Left should take up the banner of deficit reduction. More rational tax policy, less defense spending, more rational health care spending. A better way to win than the dove vs hawk argument.
12
@deedubs Selling out American factory workers has led to the establishment of a Communist Chinese Military.
America won WW11 because we had the factories to keep supplying tanks & weapons to the Brits & The Russians & now Free trade has given the Commies in China the means to expand & attack the rest of the world including our Freedom of Passage in the South China sea.Thanks Reagan.
@deedubsThe left has supported the wars in various stans when they are in power - see "Obama"
When they are in power, they sit at the table of favors and kick backs and bribes, and the repubs get the scraps
When the repubs re in power, who gets most of the corruption changes
that's all it has ever been
Also, the new 'Socialists' would have to identify themselves with some of the more extreme Leftists leaning national leaders. The new left Democrats would have to agree with many of the failed policies of the Communists. Democrats talking about foreign relations would have to admit conversely that China is not communist, just authoritarian. The government in China is no more interested in the 'common good' than Donald Trump, and any truthful Democratic Socialist would have to admit that, thus starting a distracting argument.
There are very few tankies around anymore, and no one on the Left is advocating for the Venezuelan model
1
1. The left is not about giving power to 'ordinary people'; it's about giving power to people who support 'their' ideals; just like every other political party.
2. The left is not 'accountable'; ask Alexandra (or Bernie) HOW to attain universal healthcare and watch the superficial, populist response. The GAO already told us that Bernie's 'plan' is financially unsustainable, and many feel irresponsible.
3. Our militaristic enterprise is a bloated 'jobs program' that brings billions into US states -- we already know this. So tell us 'left', how are you going to change this via the US legislative body that has so much at stake?
4. The issue is not 'threats' to the US; the issue is threats to our allies and the mitigation of humanitarian catastrophes worldwide. So again, tell us specifically 'left' how you're going to have it 'both ways'?
5. Obama (a centrist) did the best job of any president re, 'peaceful diplomacy', and yet there still are over 500MM (and growing) massacred in Syria and surrounding areas. So HOW, specifically, and you going to make this better?
The democratic socialist left is not shaping anything now -- most of 'their' ideas are not new nor even 'theirs'. The purpose of government is 'governance', ie HOW to achieve what most of us agree are necessary (eg, universal healthcare, etc). Please stop the 'activism' and ivory-tower posturing and tell us HOW you're going to get these important things done.
24
It is kind of difficult to hold people accountable when they haven't been in power yet. So, instead of guessing the accountability on the left, shouldn't we access accountability on the right? Their health care system gave the US most expensive medical system that is not accessible for many people, and the right have no idea how to fix it. Their recipe is to double down on the policies that haven't work so far, so how that is better than to try something new that worked in the other countries. How about we decrease spending in military and increase spending on healthcare?
9
@Giacomo IF the purpose of The US Military is to Protect America then we would be better off spending those billions & trillions here w effective environmental controls on corporations & supplying universal health care so employers can spend on innovation & clean environmental facilities & not wasteful insurance policies.
many employees wont use them when they are young anyway unless they are fed a diet of contaminated Flint water & pesticide laden GMO foods,
2
"....she was “not the expert on geopolitics on this issue.....”
Mr. Bessner, your essay on foreign policy is detailed and demonstrates your knowledge of foreign affairs. And you are a historian of that subject. Ms Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez is far from being a historian on that subject, but she has demonstrated a political acumen far beyond her 28 years of age.
I do think we need to give this younger generation of politicians time to learn about our foreign policy, call it on the job training. The Nancy Pelosi's in Congress can cover while they get up to speed.
My own thoughts on U.S. foreign policy is, for the most part, been disastrous since the beginning of the Vietnam Era and up through the second Iraq War. So maybe as this new generation of politicians get up to speed, they'll find a better way for theirs and future generations.
3
@cherrylog 754 You do not need to be a historian to be well informed about international politics, (Being a historian does not mean you understand history or have a correct interpretation of facts and events.) What happens to people in other parts of the world is important because they are human beings even if they are not U.S.Americans. A responsible citizen should know what happens to fellow women and men everywhere.
3
This is a terrible headline on a very good, very important story. The left side of the Democrats have been the left out side for so long that we have not identified our ideas beyond general principles.
8
You know the old saying, "To a man with a hammer, everything looks like a nail." Mr. Bessner is a historian of foreign policy, and so to him, everything looks like foreign policy.
He does not seem to be aware that many Americans are suffering. They are not suffering because of events in the South Chin Sea, or in the Middle East. They are suffering because of a government that has not acted in their interests for a long time.
Ms. Ocasio-Cortez was elected to address these domestic problems. She does not need to know anything about the South China Sea.
6
@Alan White Sorry, but I find this disingenuous. Bessner wrote a story about the extreme left and foreign policy. So he's not going to touch on every domestic issue since, you know, he's not writing about that.
I also disagree with your assessment that Ocasio-Cortez "does not need to know anything about the South China Sea." She's a member of Congress now. EVERYONE in that body needs to understand our place in the world at large and how our economy and actions affect not just us, but everyone else. They vote on issues of foreign policy. They decide if we go to war. Those who choose to be myopic and only participate in governance regarding their passion projects--or, worse, vote on things they don't understand--do their constituents, all US citizens, and the world a grave disservice. If Ocasio-Cortez wants to effectively and responsibly participate in national politics, she needs to come up to speed on these issues.
3
Mr. Bessner's positions on these issues are all good, but Democrats cannot run on a foreign policy agenda that makes the US look weak or vulnerable because of the political fallout. How do we show an electorate short on understanding or analytical skills that this approach will make us stronger?
2
Gee, I wonder how many questions Sam Rayburn received from his Texas 4th District constituents before the 1920 election regarding president Wilson’s failure to get the United States to join the League of Nations...and how this would impact policy moving forward?
3
Given that the cost of the muscular Iraq and Afghanistan fiascoes is one trillion and climbing, and thousands of American lives, one can posit that the new left's non-policy policy is cheaper and more effective than the status quo.
4
Good article. All five points are humane and to be desired.
But, the most important change in policy is missing.
To wit, next time Russia seeks indefinite peace and friendship with us, in the wake of democratic Revolution a la 1991, seize the chance.
Last time around, we decided that the inevitable temporary weakness of post-uprising Russia was an opportunistic and macho chance to shove NATO up to the Russian border.
We can thank ourselves for the present impasse with Putin, about which we seem unable to do a thing, other than mouth off.
12
The power structure of our Federal Government is designed to have Representatives be just that: representatives of small groups of voters across America. Their purpose is to speak the immediate needs of their constituents to Federal power. Ms. Ocasio -Cortez succeeds in doing just that. To say or imply that she is unworthy of that role of being a member of the House of Representative is a poor attempt by Republicans to silence the people's voice .
Sadly, that is the real story in today's politics and I suspect the purpose of this article.
2
@Robert G. McKee unfortunately, in certain districts, what constitutes the people does not align with American values
fortunately, those districts continue to be an insignificant minority
the press has promoted and seized upon this non-descript nobody, a sad commentary on the press and the current state of American politics
Well outlined and on time article ! I say this from experience.
I started and run what was the largest human rights organization in Eastern Europe for so far over twenty-five years. I have a PhD in Constitutional Law specializing in human rights.
The USA has done so much good along with some serious mistakes , has so much potential and that comes, always, as anywhere from increasing the number of people involved in democratic decisions !
Each democracy is different based on some fundamental similarities like the citizens electing for themselves through being informed and involved human beings.
a coherent,compassionate,and financially sane foreign policy - one even distinguishable from military "fortresses" throughout the world - would not necessarily be led from "The Left." From the north pole, every direction is south: from where we are now, almost any plan is an improvement.
2
I agree with much of what is in this op-ed but it will never happen. Bessner says a couple of times that the left should "educate" people about a whole bunch of things that make sense (to me) but it is an uphill struggle.
It is like trying to convince an alcoholic that he really can't handle drinking. We are so accustomed to viewing the world through the Truman Doctrine (good then, not so good now) that most people would find this author's proposals unsettling.
That's why when pressed Bernie kept shouting of course " we will destroy ISIS" . Box checked.
3
It will take a decade for the'Left' to undo all the damage to the environment, schools, fiscal regulation, health insurance and the deficit which are just a few of the disasters this Republican congress and President have left in its wake.
It might be nice to get rid of the belief that there is the need for a Pax Americana and let Europe tend to foreign problems that afflict them such as Syria and the Asians tend to an expansionist China.
5
Compared to what we have now - the Conservative doctrine of endless war (Afghanistan almost 20 years), money and lives spent on conflicts we aren't winning (see Afghanistan), all at the profit of the defense industry and the expense of the average citizen - what exactly do we have to lose? While China buys assets and cultivates influence in the Far East, Africa, Central America, and Australia, we pour our money down a bottomless pit of war.
You could take History of the World 101 and develop a better strategy over a weekend.
18
@TheUglyTruth Our strategy should be the SAFE Clean use of American oil & Gas.No more gifts to WALL ST by lax environmental standards.No more Stock gifts to Congress men & women. End Big Money ,Foreign money in our elections..
Cutting all ties w The Saudis & UAE etc...Bankrupting Exxon Mobile &all oil importers, & Free security services of Oil Producers Via The Pentagon...Ending OIL sales as a means of funding terrorist operations around the globe.for the standard of energy. Ending Free Trade w Communist China .Stopping the endless vacuuming of our oceans .Funding population controls. The world can sustain The Peoples we have now.
Women should get to choose their lives NOT fanatical religions forcing them to be baby factories,,,,,etc etc etc
1
Perhaps these 'left wingers' (but are they really, or is it just that the ship of state has listed so far to the right that any centrist with a conscience is seen by benighted members of the press who need the sound bite, to be on the infamous 'left') will avail themselves of the wisdom of Madeline Allbright, Hillary Clinton and John Kerry? Who says these wonderful young people will ignore the wisdom of their elders if they are asked to serve? Who says that they will not recognize that they are serving the people, rather than 'grabbing' at power? Let's vote them in and watch how the ship of state will steady itself.
3
“Foreign policy elites have been anything but wise and have promoted several of the worst foreign policy blunders in American history, including the wars in Vietnam and Iraq.”
These weren’t “blunders”. Iraq, Vietnam and all of the other examples of military adventurism that both parties have initiated were based on either oil or empire - the notion that we own the world.
A left foreign policy will not be based on empire, or control of resources- it would be a policy of international cooperation and respect of sovereignty.
And the insane amount of military spending will cease.
21
@Ed Watters There are so many things wrong with this Howard Zinn-like view of recent history that one hardly knows where to begin. We can start with the world view of our decision makers, which was profoundly Eurocentric and biased against indigenous forms of nationalism. Oil land empire, really - there was no notion of geopolitics and defense of what was perceived as vital interests. "Red Scares" are not new and date back to the anti-communard sentiment of the 1870s expressed in the slave labor gang model of American industrial capitalism. I could go on but when faced by such certainty, facts and logic are irrelevant.
For a major power like the US, militarism, with strict oversight, has its place. That's a cold, hard fact. The Left simply cannot acknowledge that. And thus it looks ever-ignorant in the field of foreign policy.
2
Where has American militarism produced favorable outcomes? Vietnam? Cambodia? Yemen? Afghanistan? Iraq? Somalia? Libya?
1
@Yo
The "militarism" you speak of, with strict oversight or not, has failed. That's a cold, hard fact.
Who cares? She is running for her House, which doesn’t take foreign policy into account as much as the senate.
With time in the House, she will gain foreign policy experience, and can move forward from there.
8
This article proposes nothing less than the end of the American Empire, the Unipolar World and America the Indespencable Nation all predicated on military might makes right. In other words, the complete transformation of our national identity and place at the head of the table dictacting outcomes around the world.
No hegemonic empire in history has ever decided to walk away from its dominate position at the top of its game. Quite the opposite, an empire will fight with all its might and sacrifice everything to remain first among "equals." That's because empires make many enemies while in the position of absolute power and those emenies want nothing more than to take retribution for the grave injustices they suffered while under the thumb of their master.
No, the end of our Empire will not come from any changes from within. The end will come when the world has decided they've had enough.
8
Time to wake up, Rip. That’s exactly what Donald Trump has been doing over the last 2 years.
@Dino Reno
Dino, 'we the American people' could do the right thing --- particularly now that we've seen what Emperor Trump is doing to destroy our world.
We were smart enough to reject Empire 242 years ago --- we can be brave and democratic, and do it again.
1
You want my Socialist foreign policy? Nationalize the military contractors; take the profit motive out of war. No more aimless wars designed to pour the wealth of America into the gaping money pit that is the MIC.
61
Much as I applaud the recent success of Ocasio-Cortez and wish her well its obvious that she has a great deal of homework to do. She's off to a very iffy start with her lack of "world" education, naivety and unfortunate contradictions regarding her life story.
10
@barnaby At least she recognizes her shortcomings and admits them. The usual strategy for pig-ignorant politicians is bluster, duck and cover. And I dare say she has a more informed view of technology than the "series of tubes" wing of the Senate.
What this comes down to is precisely what this article is talking about: no-one is an expert on everything, which is why we need reliable institutions to assemble expertise and data.
@barnaby
You're confusing Ocasio-Cortez with
Salazar who won in Williamsburg Brooklyn.
Ocasio-Cortez has taken the position that she can't take take position, no doubt to preserve her voting base but she can't do that forever. At some point she is going to have to take a position and her values will collide with politocal reality. Even the author here avoids mentioning it. That, and other world issues are a real problem for the keft.
7
@Penn Towers Issues like environmental damage and climate change? Yeah, of course, it's the left that has a lot to learn...
I think it's better that values collide with "political reality" rather than actual, factual reality. But then, I suppose that is why the Republicans won the presidency (political reality) while the world turns into a nightmare hellscape full of category 6 hurricanes and disastrous floods (real reality). What a piece of work is Man...
1
I don't expect every member of the House to arrive with foreign-policy gravitas. Senators, yes; but that isn't what the House is for. Of course, if an issue comes before the House, I expect the representative to become informed before voting. Trouble is, that is no longer a necessity when every vote is split along party lines and you just vote the way you're told.
Maybe that's why our elected officials seem to be getting dumber and dumber. They don't actually think through issues in order to achieve good results for the country. They just try to get elected.
10
@C Wolfe
I agree with you. The criticism of Sanders is more than fair, but not a soon to be freshman Congressional rep.
That being said I agree with the recommendation that politicians on the left need to focus more on foreign policy, not just domestic, if they want to have the credibility they need to have broader appeal. The two are deeply intertwined, particularly when so much of our resources go to international issues and far too much has been wasted on disastrous wars like Vietnam, the Bay of Pigs and other Cuban adventurism, the Contras and Iraq.
I left this article asking myself, "why would democratic socialists seek to emulate a number of failed neocon policies?" A more substantive case would have referenced these politicians' platforms and public comments in tandem with the broader policy goals. This reads like someone on the right's attempt to transmute socialist ideals into neocon foreign policy.
4
As much as many would dislike, especially in the military, reinstitution of the draft would quickly democratize war decisions. Although the draft didn't stop the start of Vietnam, having the entire US public engaged ended it. People of all races, religions, and economic and power levels had something to lose. At present, very few in Congress have kids in the military, and it's a lot easier to send someone else's kid to war.....repeatedly.
106
@Judy from upstate Interesting, and probably a good idea -- but warfare is taking on such new forms that the reinstated draft wouldn't mean the same thing it did in the past. A lot of military functions are privatized, and a lot of people in the military end up re-enlisting. Draftees would probably not be the ones to re-enlist for another tour in Afghanistan. How it would all work out is hard to see. But it is probably a good idea to start with.
@Judy,I think you have a good point there. A lot of people don't know we still have soldiers in
Afghanistan and Iraq.
1
@Judy from upstate. Yes. We need the draft or, better, national service which could include military service. This would mean at least 18 months of public service, military or otherwise, for all able-bodied citizens, rich or poor, male or female, Democrat or Republican, and everything in-between.
9
It's socialism that the U.S. has been fighting in Russia, Vietnam, by promoting brutal dictators in Latin America; and now by distancing us from our allies in Europe as they adopt forms of socialism.
Whom have we been protecting from socialism? Not the American people who were sold the trickle-down theory, but the elite, the privatizers, the 1%.
Our current administration suits the 1% just fine. They demolish regulations meant to protect our health and wealth in order to increase their profits. No wonder thinking people are turning to democratic socialism. They see the Nordic countries of Europe provide a decent life for all and pay higher taxes in order to afford it.
Your recommendations for a foreign policy of the left are all good; and I would suggest they fit seamlessly with those of Bernie Sanders.
34
@betty durso
FYI, Russia (USSR) never had socialism; it was just a pretend-socialism that, in practice, contradicted everything that all students had to study for years about socialism.
1
@betty durso
"Whom have we been protecting from socialism?"
Obviously, the grammar teachers in those socialist public schools.
https://emcphd.wordpress.com
This article has a brilliant sheen but suffers badly from
historical and political naiveté. The US has achieved its
position of power, influence, and wealth by flouting most of the
principles espoused here. How can a nation suddenly change
course as suggested in this article? How much has to change,
politically and institutionally, for this to occur? What aspects
of international law can be relied upon to help reduce military
conflict and abuse of populations? If Professor Bessner has specificanswers he should produce them. What I read here, under the guiseof advice about the South China Sea, is a collection of platitudes. Getting beyond them, in a way that is politically sound and actually safe for the country, seems incredibly difficult.
20
@vjcjr Incredibly difficult, yes. But This is describing a beginning. For all these years, our militaristic policy of global domination has been accepted by both major parties. If the Democratic Socialists really represent something new in American politics, this might be an opportunity to see some outlines of a new foreign policy. The possibilities have been discussed for years in left-wing journals and conferences, but now we see an possibility for them to be expressed in electoral politics. If there is to be any change, it has to start somewhere.
3
The quandary for the Left is going to be how to balance anti militarism with support for human rights and Democracy. Must of The US's military actions have not been defense or conquest but in support of human rights against brutal regimes. Do we intervene in Syria? Myanmar? Sudan? Anywhere there are atrocities being committed there will be a push for intervention, often from the left, yet it rarely helps make the overall picture better. These will continue to be the most difficult foreign policy decisions. And balancing anti militarism with human rights is not easy.
32
@Bob: There are very few examples of military interventions in support of human rights, but from the few examples we've seen, they have not worked very well. There are almost always better approaches. Where we can claim credit for supporting human rights, our support has always been in the form of economic, diplomatic and cultural support for existing human rights movements and traditions. A leftist foreign policy would move strongly in the direction of this kind of aid, extended through the UN and other international bodies. An example of such an opportunity would be the recent story of the project of rebuilding Mosul -- huge amounts of aid are needed by the UN agency trying to clear the destroyed city of unexploded ammunition and vast numbers of mines left by the departing ISIS forces.
1
Wow what a demeaning article. How great for Mr. Bessner that the Times provides him with an outlet to approach corporations and billionaires to set up his think tank so he can advise these poor ignorant politicians. If there is one lesson the left has learned, it's: be wary of experts.
17
Mr. Bessner says "the left should not allow American-led corporations to use underpaid and abused workers to produce inexpensive products." How does this make sense? Is it OK for non-American corporations? Is it OK for expensive products?
Poor countries are making progress and growing out of poverty by manufacturing goods for the world. Globalization at its best.
9
@wnhoke
There is plenty of evidence that globalization makes lives worse, not better. Do some googling. These factories are great for first-worlders looking to exploit cheap labor without regulatory oversight, but the jobs provided are bad, unsafe, and can have disastrous effects on local economies.
10
@wnhoke
Yes, globalization can lift people out of poverty worldwide. But, there is no question, at this point, that our workers have taken a hit because of it. And, there's no good reason for it. As the world's wealthiest country, we first ensure that the standard of living of our own does not decline. Second, we ensure that the cheap goods are not produced by what is essentially slave labor working in horrible conditions. We tell the countries we're moving our factories to or buying goods from that we simply won't have it. That's the human, or, shall I say, the Christian thing to do. Nobody needs cheap stuff that badly.
The right, with their 'religion' of unfettered capitalism has allowed all of this to happen. It's time to let people with consciences run things.
8
@wnhoke I think you are picking at words, not ideas here. The point isn't whether the workers in question are foreign or domestic -- a leftist foreign policy should constantly hold the idea of "workers of the world". It's unfortunate that some American leftists seem happy with the limited goal of bringing jobs back to this country. The point is, we should support decent treatment of workers everywhere.
1
I fundamentally agree with this analysis with one exception and one addition. Yes, the left does have to develop and articulate a coherent foreign policy platform, and it should be a peace platform.
I would add that we need a specific emphasis on ending our regime-change program. It is not enough to decrease our military footprint. We should end our regime-change agenda. We should cease to bully regimes we don't like by abusing our economic power, such as imposing ruinous economic sanctions, and we should end our covert operations aimed at meddling in other countries elections and internal politics.
And it is not clear to me that taking foreign policy power from the presidency, as our Constitution mandates, and giving it to Congress, will help the cause of peace. Congress has been equally or more hawkish than our presidents.
A number of presidents have won elections campaigning on a peace platform, only to be bludgeoned into a more hawkish foreign policy by Congress, the press, the career civilian and military establishment and the think tanks and "experts".
Take for example Jimmy Carter's attempt to remove our troops from Korea. He was opposed not only by the press, the military and the foreign policy establishment but most importantly, by Congress. I don't think that assigning more foreign policy power to Congress will solve problem.
17
Can you imagine Pelosi or Schumer or Clinton enunciating anything this powerful?
I can’t.
We should reduce military spending to what we are asking from our NATO partners: 2% of GDP. And let’s reduce spending on nuclear weapons to zero. Right now, we spend more on nuclear weapons than tertiary education. Every year. We have thousands of them. Enough.
177
@Luke
Clinton/Pelosi/Schumer are (were) in the unfortunate position of actually having to institute change, legally via our political process -- Professors and activists aren't.
1
We need to keep military spending at whatever level is necessary to prevent the craziest potential enemy from persuading himself that he can successfully attack the United States.
On December 7, 1941, such an enemy so persuaded himself, at the exact hour that I was baptized. Many years later, my mother told me that not only did radio news of the attack spoil the party at my grandparents' house after the ceremony, but that for the first year afterwards she believed that we were going to lose the war.
2
@Luke Well Luke, with all that spending you outline here, it should be clear that we are really getting an education after all.
Great article; thank you Mr Bessner. Finally, someone listed ways to reduce our military influence throughout the world. We've been exporters of terror - weapons to Saudi Arabia which have killed thousands of people in Yemen; relentless bombings in Syria, which destroyed infrastructure in multiple cities and resulted in millions of refugees being displaced; a forgotten war in the wasteland called Afghanistan - 3,000 troops killed and $1 trillion dollars of taxpayer money for nothing. It's time to come home - and export peace and assistance. The Pentagon's budget should be cut in half and the money used to rebuilt our inner cities.
74
Domestic policy does dictate foreign policy, or at least indicate a party's preferences. While no one promotes a weak military, the very fact that the right promotes increased military spending at the expense of domestic programs, and the left promotes less spending on the military to fund domestic assistance, indicates their positions.
All that is needed is clarification and explanations. Do we believe in foreign intervention, or not? Do we want our own foreign bases, or not? As far as priorities, domestic vs military spending, they are evident.
10
although she has apparently walked it back,
she at one time supported the boycott and
divest movement against Israel and made
statements praising the most radical
elements of the PLO. she is still young
enough to grow,I imagine,and while I am
a registered Democrat and voted as such
in the recent ny primary, it is troubling to
me that so many of the young progressives
associate themselves (Julia Salazar is yet
another)with such radical elements. let us
hope that when they get to Washington or
Albany, they will be facing the right way.
37
@Frank
indeed! I am an MD who supports single payer...but we DEMS must understand that the word “socialism”: will scare away most potential voters. More importantly Ocasio and her group do not even really know what the phrase means— it refers to european/scandinavian nations that are decidedly capitalist but have great safety nets. please drop the word socialist. Also must stop support for radical PLO etc.
8
@Frank
I, for one, fervent wish Ocasio-Cortez and others would reaffirm their support for BDI. Though many argue that criticizing anything Israel does is antisemitic, there is growing awareness that Israel's government is no more above reproach than any other country's government. Blind devotion to/support of all things Israeli is naive, dangerous and immoral. No country or administration is entitled to a free pass from those who claim to care about it. Too many thoughtful people are cowed into silence by the threat of being branded antisemites.
4
@Frank
President Carter’s well-researched book, Palestine: Peace Not Apartheid, and the globally supported work of the UN (including at UNRWA) give many reasonable policy makers around the world reasons to support sanctions.
1