Dana H. Allin is a senior fellow and editor of Survival at the International Institute for Strategic Studies in London. Philip H. Gordon and Michael E. O’Hanlon are senior fellows in foreign policy studies at the Brookings Institution in Washington, D.C.

The Democratic Party and Foreign Policy Dana H. Allin, Philip H. Gordon, and Michael E. O’Hanlon

If George W. Bush is not to be elected to a them with a huge electoral albatross that second term practically by acclamation, the will not go away. Democrats can no longer leaders of the Democratic Party—and others count on a repeat of the miracle of 1992, skeptical of the president’s ability to pur- the first post–Cold War presidential elec- sue a truly sensible and realistic foreign pol- tion, when the Republican polling advan- icy—will have to do a better job than they tage in national security affairs was rendered did in the 2002 midterm elections of con- moot. It matters again now. If Democrats vincing the American public that they are are to have any hope of returning to power capable of offering a viable alternative. in 2004, or even of running competitively Those elections will no doubt receive a lot and keeping the U.S. two-party system more analysis. But one thing is already healthy and balanced in the coming decade, abundantly clear: the Democrats’ failure to they will have to convince the American convince anxious voters of their ability to people that they are as capable as Republi- protect national security played an impor- cans of protecting the United States from tant role in their electoral defeat. The tradi- terrorism and other security threats. tional midterm swing against the incum- Foreign policy and national security pol- bent president did not materialize—the icy, it is often argued, are not the dominant sputtering economy notwithstanding— issues in American presidential elections. because a central question in voters’ minds But they are more important than people was their security, and they overwhelmingly think, even in times of relative peace. The trusted Republicans more than Democrats president, as commander in chief, has dis- to safeguard it. proportionate power to make foreign policy, The Democrats’ strategy of conceding and to take the nation to war. A candidate’s the foreign policy field to President Bush ability to talk plainly and convincingly and trying to move the debate from the is- about national security matters also helps sue of national security to corporate scan- voters take stock of a potential president in dals, social security, or prescription drugs a way that arcane debates over the intrica- was bound to fail. According to internal cies of providing universal health care or tax party polls, at least half of Americans asked policy may not. So even if public opinion say that national security and terrorism are polls suggest that defense and other foreign their main preoccupations. With a Republi- policy issues are less important to voters can edge of 40 percentage points on these than the domestic economy, social security, matters (when those polled were asked education, and crime, these issues cannot be whom they trusted most to protect their neglected by someone asking the country to security, 59 percent said the Republicans, entrust him or her with the highest office in 19 percent said the Democrats), Democrats the land. Bill Clinton recognized this politi- cannot hope to make up the difference on cal fact of life and went to great lengths to economic and social issues. This leaves establish his bona fides on national security

The Democratic Party and Foreign Policy 7 matters in 1992. George W. Bush, even less not just in social policy, but especially in experienced on foreign policy than Clinton, terms of a continuing conservative agenda of did exactly the same thing in 2000. tax cuts that favor the rich and are explicitly Moreover, there are large constituencies designed to starve the federal government of in key swing states that are very interested its future capacity to pursue progressive in defense issues. In 2000, Democratic poll- policies. sters told Al Gore that defense ranked no The Democrats are not going to start higher than twelfth on a list of voter priori- winning elections on the strength of their ties. At the risk of sounding disrespectful of national security and foreign policies any the professionals, that has to be hogwash. time soon. But it would already be an ac- Military retirees, veterans, and the 6 million complishment to avoid losing elections on people employed today in defense-related that basis. To do so they will need to pre- work did not put defense low on their list of sent their anxious compatriots with a com- political priorities. Some 30 million voters pelling vision of how America can and fall into one of these categories (not count- should defend its security, protect its glo- ing spouses or other immediate family bal interests, and promote its core values members). Had Gore and his running mate, in a dangerous world. Democrats need not Joe Lieberman, been credible enough on na- and should not mimic Republicans in the tional security issues to convince a few thou- foreign policy realm. But they cannot suc- sand more of the 2 million such voters in ceed at the polls by ignoring serious for- Florida to go their way, they would have eign policy challenges or by using a vocab- won the election. The frequently repeated ulary grounded in peace movement dog- Gore/Lieberman soundbite that “we have ma. Instead, the Democratic challenge is to the best military in the world” did not sway discover—or, more precisely, rediscover— many voters, since it was true but also obvi- and successfully articulate a distinctly na- ous. In 2002, Democratic incumbent sena- tionalist liberalism. tors Max Cleland of Georgia and Jean Car- nahan of Missouri lost their seats (and the Enlightened Nationalism Democratic Party lost control of the Senate) “Nationalism” is a dirty word for many lib- in close races where security issues may well erals. It shouldn’t be. For a liberal democ- have been decisive. Their party was depicted racy like the United States, there is no in- by Republicans as more concerned with pro- herent contradiction between enlightened tecting federal workers than pushing for the nationalism and liberal internationalism. speedy creation of a department of home- There is, however a difference of emphasis, land security. particularly given the way that liberal inter- The lack in faith in Democrats with re- nationalism has been put forward and some- spect to foreign policy is not just a problem times parodied in recent decades. The prin- for the Democratic Party: it has larger im- cipal difference is that nationalist liberals plications for the society in which we live as consciously accept the critical importance of well as for how the United States is seen in power, including military power, in promot- the world. The U.S. political system is still ing American security, interests, and values. skewed by an eighteenth-century federalism Much of this road was traveled a genera- that disproportionately favors rural and con- tion ago by “neo-conservatives”—many of servative interests. If the system is further them former Democrats and even extreme tilted in coming years by a structural Dem- leftists—who reacted against the indiscrimi- ocratic national security handicap, we are nately pacifist orthodoxies of the Left in the going to see a lot more than six more years face of Soviet tyranny and a fashionable, of Republican rule. The effects would be felt morally twisted “anti-Zionist” agenda. Neo-

8 WORLD POLICY JOURNAL • SPRING 2003 conservatives are now influential in the fortable with unilateralism. Clear majorities Bush administration, where their ambitious of Americans, for example, support ratifica- vision for a democratic remake of the Mid- tion of the Comprehensive Nuclear Test dle East has earned them the title of “demo- Ban Treaty (CTBT), the Kyoto Protocol on cratic imperialists.” There is some overlap climate change, and the International Crim- between the agenda we are proposing and inal Court, all of which the Bush adminis- the policies promoted by the neo-conserva- tration has opposed, leading to great resent- tives. But there are major differences. ment abroad. Given this reality, Democrats First, nationalist liberalism is not neo- should be able to win widespread support conservative for the simple reason that it is for their foreign policies, but only if they not conservative. It is based on an explicit can overcome an undeserved reputation for connection between foreign policy and pro- weakness that, in reality, is based only on a gressive domestic policies. America’s image few years of post-Vietnam confusion. abroad has been undermined by the Bush The Democrats, to be sure, also had an administration’s entanglement with right- older credibility problem in foreign policy. wing domestic interests on a range of issues Franklin D. Roosevelt’s New Deal coalition including family planning, environmental- included a fair number of crypto-Commu- ism, and the International Criminal Court. nists and other leftists who were perversely Second, nationalist liberals, although credulous about Soviet propaganda—despite comfortable with the exercise of American abundant contemporary knowledge of Sta- power, are also aware of how this over- lin’s crimes. This credulity was further en- whelming power is likely to be perceived couraged by wartime imperatives of solidar- —and misconstrued—abroad. They avoid ity with America’s Russian ally. Thus, the triumphalist rhetoric and go out of their postwar demagoguery of Joseph McCarthy, way to treat allies with respect, rather than the young Richard Nixon, and other right- alienating them by ignoring, or trivializing, wing Republicans, while outrageous, did their perspectives—in effect, reducing their not rely on sheer invention. Still, any Dem- complicated history under the catchall of ocratic tendency toward appeasing the Sovi- “appeasement.” They recognize that Ameri- ets was effectively squelched when the hard- can power represents an opportunity to do nosed Harry Truman replaced the agrarian- much good for America and the world—but leftist Henry Wallace as FDR’s running that it will create resistance and resentment mate in 1944. Both a nationalist and an in- if it is exercised arrogantly and unilaterally, ternationalist, Truman was also very much a making it harder for the United States to liberal—as his campaign against the “Cap- achieve its goals. tains of Greed” made abundantly clear. Democrats ought to be able to take ad- The next Democratic presidents, John F. vantage of two central realities: they are Kennedy and Lyndon B. Johnson, were more in tune than Republicans with Ameri- afraid of appearing weak—both to Commu- ca’s major allies, and also—according to the nists abroad and Republicans at home. It polls—on issue after issue they are more in would be going too far to say that the disas- tune with the majority of American voters. ter of Vietnam was the consequence of their They are, in fact, a more natural bridge be- obsession with being “tough,” although that tween the liberal internationalism of Ameri- obsession probably did contribute to an in- ca’s allies and the liberal internationalism adequate scrutiny of the war’s underlying expressed by most of the American people, assumptions. But we should not forget who broadly support the United Nations, that Kennedy and Johnson, like Truman highly value allied support for military op- before them, explicitly linked their for- erations (including in Iraq), and are uncom- eign policy agenda with a progressive

The Democratic Party and Foreign Policy 9 New Deal–inspired vision of domestic soci- Democrats should have made political hay ety. They understood themselves to be in —or at least a good political defense—out competition with Soviet communism, and of that fact. If the Bush administration is that they had to prove—rather than just as- right that the U.S. forces that performed sert—the superiority of Western democracy. brilliantly in Afghanistan and are now Products of this understanding included the poised for a decisive victory in Iraq are the Marshall Plan, the Peace Corps, the race to most powerful and efficient in history, credit the moon and, in large measure, domestic must be given in no small part to the poli- civil rights legislation—which was passed cies of the Clinton administration. over many Republican objections and which constituted the third act (after the Revolu- A Democratic Vision tionary War and the American Civil War) of Instead of conceding the issue of national se- the American revolution. curity to Republicans or offering up only During the 2000 presidential campaign, jealous and reflexive criticism, Democrats Al Gore and Joe Lieberman largely ignored need to put forward their own vision and defense policy and allowed the inexperi- show themselves willing and able to do enced Bush to be the one to propose innova- whatever it takes to protect American lives tive defense reforms and to argue for the and interests. Bill Clinton was absolutely need for a military buildup. They thus con- right to declare that “when people are [feel- ceded what, as longstanding proponents of ing] insecure, they’d rather have somebody strong defense policies, should have been who is strong and wrong...than somebody their natural advantage, and allowed Bush who is weak and right.” Of course, Ameri- to make great headway with accusations cans will respond most enthusiastically to that the Clinton administration had allowed the party that promises to keep America U.S. military capabilities to erode. strong and right. Gore and Lieberman could have under- This calls for a willingness to spend scored how well the U.S. military had actu- money on defense and use force when neces- ally performed recently in the Balkans (zero sary. But it also means striving to live in a deaths in combat, as well as in the end a de- world where America is liked and respected, cisive victory) and in the skies over Iraq not only feared. It means that a resolute de- since the end of the Gulf War. They could termination to fight the war on terrorism, have pointed out how rigorously the armed by military means if necessary, has to be forces were trained and prepared for battle coupled with a generous vision of global so- (comparable in nearly every way to the Rea- ciety and America’s role in it. September 11 gan-Bush glory days), and how experienced revealed the security implications of global and educated U.S. troops were. They could inequality, not because all the hijackers have acknowledged the strains in civil-mili- were poor—they weren’t—or because pov- tary relations during the 1990s (in part a erty and inequality automatically lead to function of such issues as gays in the mili- terrorism—they don’t. But it is clear that tary and Clinton’s lack of military service) the social and economic backwardness of yet described the reforms that had been much of the Islamic world today has some- made. They could have reminded voters thing to do with the extreme version of Is- how the military had kept the peace over lam that has emerged in parts of it, and also the previous eight years, from Korea to the that such backwardness provides fertile re- Taiwan Strait to the Persian Gulf. In fact, cruiting grounds for religious extremists. the deep cuts in U.S. forces in the 1990s Moreover, terrorists often find refuge and represented the most successful military sources of revenue in failed states, which retrenchment in the nation’s history, and tend to be found in those parts of the world

10 WORLD POLICY JOURNAL • SPRING 2003 where health care, education, and economic convention without proposing any alterna- development are lacking. tives. Hard-liners had argued against Presi- A more generous and compelling vision dent Bush’s decision last September to go to of global society is also the necessary moral the United Nations for a final ultimatum to glue for an effective alliance of democracies. Saddam Hussein, and many now feel that Again, the Democrats have everything to the difficulties of building an international gain—both domestically and international- coalition in favor of war against Iraq vin- ly—from a progressive vision that includes dicate the argument for the unilateral ap- humanitarian intervention against genocidal proach—as if the international community violence; family planning; effective coopera- would simply have gone along happily had tion against global warming and other envi- the United States not sought the backing of ronmental scourges; an active policy to com- the Security Council. bat AIDS, which will likely kill far more peo- The good news is that most of the dam- ple than terrorism and war in the coming age in these areas can still be repaired. The years; generous foreign aid and progressively bad news is that an image of America as an freer trade in textiles, agriculture, and other arrogant go-alone superpower has been rein- goods produced by poor nations; and robust forced, not only in Europe where the dam- international institutions. In many cases, the age can perhaps be repaired, but in much United States and its allies need new ways of the Arab world. Some conservatives in of thinking about how to pursue these the Bush administration may be indifferent goals. For example, humanitarian interven- to the sharp decline in America’s standing tion in Africa would be a natural mission in world opinion, but Americans—and the for the European Union’s planned Rapid Democrats—should not be. A negative im- Reaction Force; African militaries could be age of the United States weakens alliances, trained and equipped for the task as well. increases resistance to U.S. policy, and, at But the main point is that Democrats have worst, expands the available pool of poten- every reason to associate themselves with tial recruits for terrorism. a traditionally liberal pursuit of global progress. The Iraq Test To a considerable extent, the Bush ad- The greatest current test of a Democratic ministration has squandered the interna- foreign policy vision is Iraq. There was al- tional goodwill needed to keep our alliances ways a strong case to be made that attacking strong and effective. Administration hard- Iraq would carry more costs and risks than liners appear to favor a unilateralist ap- potential gains, and Democrats should not proach to most foreign policy issues. To the have been afraid of making that case. But extent that they even acknowledge that al- contorted attempts to establish artificial lies are necessary, they seem to work from differences with President Bush’s policy to- the misguided premise that international ward Iraq have not served Democrats well. cooperation is best achieved when the The fact is that the administration’s argu- stronger power announces its intentions and ment for mounting a credible threat of force weaker powers then have little choice but to to address the issue of Iraq’s weapons of follow along. Republicans have pursued a mass destruction was strong enough to war- narrow ideological agenda on issues like the rant support, if not as part of the war on International Criminal Court and the Kyoto terror then as a way to ensure the stability Protocol, and encouraged the president to of the Persian Gulf and to maintain the be generally dismissive of such efforts. They credibility of the United Nations. By push- have opposed the CTBT as well as the verifi- ing the administration to take its case to the cation protocol to the biological weapons United Nations, Democrats helped achieve

The Democratic Party and Foreign Policy 11 a Security Council Resolution that made the Schroeder’s own unfortunate decision to disarmament of Iraq more likely than it had campaign for reelection by bashing the been for years. If Saddam Hussein’s refusal United States and led most of the world to to abide by that resolution makes it neces- believe that the United States wanted war sary for the United States to lead a coalition whether inspections worked or not. Accord- of like-minded allies to enforce it (we write ing to the Washington Post, administration this in mid-March), the Bush administra- representatives were telling allies at the Se- tion will not hesitate to do so, and Democ- curity Council in February that they did rats should not hesitate to support it. not, in fact, have to decide what to do about Liberals need to recognize that Iraq is a Iraq because that decision “is ours, and we classic example of the way in which the seri- have made it. It is already final. The only ous threat to use force and a U.S. approach question now is whether the Council will go that verges on unilateralism can make the along with it or not.” This was hardly a way United Nations system more, not less, effec- to make our allies feel that the United tive. They should also recognize that if their States respected their opinion. preferred outcome—Iraqi compliance and The entire Bush administration, even disarmament without war—proves unat- Secretary of State Colin Powell, has also of- tainable, as it well might, the logic of this ten appeared to exaggerate the alleged links policy means using force to overthrow Sad- between Saddam and al-Qaeda. There have dam Hussein. There are good reasons to be been associations between Iraq and al-Qaeda concerned about the costs of such a war, but and they are worthy of close tracking. But Democrats would do well to learn from the they do not appear to amount to close mate- common-sense, nationalist liberalism of rial or tactical collaboration between Iraq British prime minister Tony Blair. Stating and Osama bin Laden’s followers, and as in the House of Commons that the goal was such do not constitute grounds for war. Fre- not “regime change” but disarmament, Blair quent administration attempts to make did not hesitate to add what should be an more of these links than the evidence sug- obvious point, that “regime change in Iraq gests has led many around the world, and would be a wonderful thing…. One thing I within the United States, to suspect the ad- find odd are people who find the notion of ministration would stretch the truth to sell regime change in Iraq somehow distasteful.” its war policy. Democrats can support the president Finally, after the passage of resolution on using force against Saddam without ap- 1441, the Pentagon began a major military plauding his diplomacy of the past year. The buildup in the Persian Gulf that further administration’s hubris in thinking that we suggested the Bush administration’s mind could simply bully the rest of the world in- was already made up about war. The acceler- to following us on this issue continues to ated deployment also created an artificial haunt us. Vice President Dick Cheney and reason for prompt action based on the argu- Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld ment that once deployed the troops would should not have been dismissive of inspec- soon have to be used. This was every bit as tions, so inclined to hype the immediate much an “ambush” as France’s subsequent threat posed by Saddam, and so gung-ho for decision in January to state publicly that war at the outset, leading allies to think there was not yet a case for war against Sad- that we were not merely threatening force to dam and that it might veto any attempt at a achieve disarmament but were determined second resolution. As such, Secretary of De- to go to war no matter what. Their speeches fense Rumsfeld’s disparaging comments and other public pronouncements con- about “old Europe” and his comparison of tributed to German chancellor Gerhard Germany to Libya and Cuba, while perhaps

12 WORLD POLICY JOURNAL • SPRING 2003 satisfying to Rumsfeld personally, were ex- coming Ariel Sharon as the most frequent tremely counterproductive. They made even visitor to the Oval Office, failing to oppose countries that support the basic U.S. ap- Israeli settlement activity, calling Sharon a proach on Iraq, like Spain, cringe; in Febru- “man of peace” (a moniker it is not clear ary 2003 Prime Minister José María Anzar that Sharon himself would choose), allowing told President Bush that Europeans needed cabinet officials like Secretary of Defense to hear “less from Secretary Rumsfeld and Rumsfeld to refer to the “so-called occupied more from Secretary Powell” in the debates territories,” and failing to appoint an active, over Iraq. high-profile Middle East envoy could only The Bush administration is right to be lead the Arab world to conclude that the resolute in making Saddam comply with United States was not an honest broker in 1441, and deserves credit for doing so. But the conflict. Hard as it may be, any Ameri- it should have worked quietly with its allies can leader committed to achieving peace in to try to fashion a timeline and a series of the Middle East will have to make clear that deadlines all could accept, rather than mak- his support for a Palestinian state is more ing decisions about tactics and war timing than rhetorical, that he is prepared to en- mostly by itself. In the process, it gave Sad- gage both sides and assume political risk in dam hope, increased the chances of war as a doing so, and that the Israeli side will also result, and weakened the Western alliance have to make painful compromises, includ- through a very public and unnecessary clash ing the dismantling of many settlements. It with some of our closest friends and allies— is possible and necessary to be “pro-Israel” friends and allies we will need to rebuild without pursuing a policy that leads to deep and stabilize Iraq after the war, even if we international resentment, misunderstanding, might not require their combat help on and resistance to U.S. initiatives. the battlefield. Democrats can also credibly challenge Defense Spending and National Security the Bush administration on its neglect of Democrats also need to think hard about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Resolution their ideas on U.S. defense spending. They of this festering problem would arguably should support necessary increases in mili- make a greater contribution to the war on tary spending. But they should also be ask- terrorism than any future use of military ing whether a Pentagon that got by on force. Bush came into office extremely reluc- $300 billion a year under Clinton, and that tant—not without reason, after the Clinton now has a annual budget approaching $400 administration’s failed efforts to negotiate billion, really needs another $100 billion a peace at the July 2000 Camp David sum- year by the end of the decade, as the Bush mit—to get bogged down in what it feared administration insists. Of that jump from would be endless and futile negotiations. $300 billion to $500 billion, less than half While the Bush approach may have been can be explained by the combined effects of politically expedient, it underestimated the war on terrorism and inflation. Part of the cost to the United States of appearing the increase is due to rising research and uninterested in working toward a solution development spending intended to hasten to the conflict. military “transformation,” a radical change President Bush was right to support Is- in weapons and tactics that relies heavily rael’s right to defend itself, to denounce the on information and communications tech- Palestinian Authority’s support for terror- nologies. Tens of billions of dollars a year ism, and to conclude that Palestinians are to go to military procurement for the would only achieve their goals under new purchase of a new generation of weapons leadership. But to have done so while wel- that candidate Bush pledged to “skip,” and

The Democratic Party and Foreign Policy 13 similar amounts will go for operations ac- to choose tomorrow between adequate de- counts, for everything from training to fense spending and adequate funding of so- equipment repair to environmental cleanup cial programs. And Democrats can empha- to military health care. Democrats should size that, in time of war, it is only fair and support necessary increases without jumping patriotic that the wealthy, who are currently on the bandwagon for a Reaganesque de- benefiting the most from globalization, not fense budget buildup that would exacerbate benefit disproportionately from tax cuts as the federal deficit and deny funds for other well. pressing needs. It should be possible to save several bil- Even a $500 billion defense budget in lion dollars from the defense budget, partly 2009 will amount to little more than 3.3 by keeping missile defense programs within percent of GDP, compared with 3 percent reasonable bounds in the coming years, but when Bush became president. Moreover, mostly by doing what Rumsfeld and Bush Bush and Rumsfeld are not proposing to in- themselves promised to do prior to 9/11. crease the size of the armed forces; they have That is, to “skip a generation” of weaponry. accepted the cuts President Clinton effected The military does need to buy new systems but wish to ensure that the remaining forces to replace aging fighters, ships, helicopters, (one-third smaller than during the 1980s) and land vehicles, so it cannot take another are paid, trained, and equipped to the best procurement holiday as it did in the 1990s. possible standards. At a time of fiscal pres- But the Defense Department can cancel or sure, however, and after a of couple rounds scale back some of the ultra-expensive new of major tax cuts, this increase in defense platforms—F-22 fighters, V-22 tilt-rotor spending could nonetheless weaken the planes, Comanche helicopters, Virginia class economy—and hence our long-term secu- submarines—and instead buy less expensive, rity—while impeding efforts to pursue proven systems. In many cases, it can simply meaningful domestic initiatives. It can also buy more of the types of weapons it already deny funds for needed homeland security has in inventory, modernizing those plat- measures and, for example, the Nunn-Lugar forms with the latest electronics, computers, cooperative threat reduction activities in communications systems, sensors, and mu- Russia to reduce the stockpiles of nuclear nitions, and tying them into networks of weapons. Long-term counterterrorism efforts unmanned aerial vehicles and other ad- could also be jeopardized: the $25 million vanced reconnaissance devices. This middle a year currently allocated for supporting “selective” course can achieve modernization democracy and improving education in while keeping the defense budget within Arab states is a pittance, and the $10 mil- bounds. lion budgeted to help African militaries Democrats in Congress also need to build up their own capabilities to keep prove their credentials as competent man- peace on their continent represents a cut agers by working to reform Pentagon busi- from previous levels and is simply not ness practices. Much of the projected bud- enough to do the job. get increases are being driven by noncom- What can Democrats do? Containing bat support activities, such as health care, the defense budget alone will not achieve environmental cleanup, equipment repair, fiscal balance or fund a major new entitle- base maintenance, and the like. Secretary ment program like a generous prescription of Defense Rumsfeld has paid lip service drug benefit for seniors. But Democrats to privatizing these activities and making can insist that fiscal sanity is a matter of na- them more efficient, but he is generally tional security. The Bush administration’s failing in the effort. Congress can help proposed tax cuts could force our children him move in this direction.

14 WORLD POLICY JOURNAL • SPRING 2003 Democrats have also left themselves un- Certain high-visibility infrastructure, in- necessarily vulnerable on matters of home- cluding nuclear power plants, has been safe- land defense. In the run-up to last fall’s con- guarded, though perhaps not adequately. gressional elections, President Bush accused But the administration needs to turn its them of obstructing the creation of a new attention to chemical facilities and trucks department of homeland security, which, carrying toxic materials. Apparently, with ironically, they had proposed in the first its faith in the private sector (and perhaps place. While the Democrats’ emphasis on too little imagination about how al-Qaeda the rights of unions and federal workers might strike next), Washington has simply within the new department was understand- assumed that companies owning such as- able, it left them looking weak on national sets will provide adequate protection on security concerns. Moreover, they failed to their own. make the more politically resonant point Clearly, the private sector must play that the sclerotic and rigid civil service sys- a large role in protecting its own assets tem does need to be reformed. Had the against terrorism; but how can the govern- Democrats demanded guarantees of fair ment best interact with private businesses to treatment for employees of the new depart- protect against attacks? Legislating detailed ment, but worked hard and quickly to offer security regulations would be cumbersome, up a plan that provided President Bush flex- slow, and costly. A smarter approach over ibility in creating the new agency, voters the medium term would combine minimal might not have blamed them for the stale- regulation (to require basic safety standards) mate in Washington. As it was, the Repub- with a reliance on insurers to encourage ad- licans made political hay of the issue. ditional precautions, as argued by economist Peter Orszag of the Brookings Institution. Looking Ahead That is, to require trucking and chemical Where do Democrats go from here? They companies, for example, to carry terrorism should support the president when appro- insurance, and then let insurance companies priate, as in threatening force to achieve the offer better rates to companies that take disarmament of Iraq or selectively increasing prudent precautions above and beyond the the defense budget, but challenge him legal minimum. This makes for a dynamic, where they can present a strong critique evolving, cost-minimizing approach that and an alternative vision, as on homeland avoids the heavy hand of government regu- security and the maintenance of healthy al- lation while harnessing the power of the pri- liance relationships. Much of the task of vate market. But the Bush administration is protecting America against terrorist and so wedded to traditional big business inter- proliferation threats—probably the hardest ests that it has not yet considered such part—is still ahead. Democrats need to keep ideas. This provides a natural opening for pushing the president to address this agen- Democrats. da—which goes well beyond the question When the al-Qaeda terrorists attacked of Iraq. New York and Washington, they pushed Looking ahead on the question of home- American politics a little bit further into land security, the general issue of private- Republican territory. President Bush has sector infrastructure requires greater atten- exploited this political reality skillfully, just tion. The Bush budgets for homeland secu- as he has prosecuted the first stages of the rity for 2003 and 2004 focus largely on “re- war on terrorism (in most respects) ably. It fighting the last war”—preventing future would serve neither the national interest, attacks by such means as flying airplanes in- nor the Democrats’ own political interest, to buildings or putting anthrax in the mail. to stake out positions that are confused,

The Democratic Party and Foreign Policy 15 evasive, or wrong just for the sake of party tion to combine American power and Amer- politics. Yet it should be possible for the ican values in a way that does not isolate the opposition party to put forward its own vi- United States from much of the world. That sion for maintaining a secure America and would start to move the foreign policy de- forcefully defending American interests bate back into Democratic territory.• abroad, while challenging this administra- —March 14, 2003

16 WORLD POLICY JOURNAL • SPRING 2003