Own That Smear!
Bacevich complains loudly and frequently in Washington Rules that people who suggest things such as this are often denounced with the inevitably pejorative term “isolationist”, but if I comb back through the political science literature on what some called “Middle Western Isolationism” or “Midwestern Isolationism” (Billington, 1945; Smuckler, 1953; Rieselbach and Russett, 1960), it’s possible to see in Bacevich, a Midwesterner, an inheritor of this tradition — at least in terms of his preferences for how big the U.S. military should be and where it should be based and employed. If I were him, I would just own the term “isolationist” and let the haters hate. Instead of preemptively denouncing those who would accuse him of isolationism, it might have born more fruit had Bacevich instead asked his readers, in light of what you have seen in Bosnia, Kosovo, Somalia, Iraq and Afghanistan … why is isolationism so bad? ~Andrew Exum
Via Scoblete
Exum must know perfectly well why Prof. Bacevich doesn’t want to “own” the “isolationist” name. First of all, the word has always been intended and used as an insult designed to misrepresent the foreign policy views of the people who are thus labeled. As Greg says, it concedes too much, because it summons up the idea of a “Fortress America” that most non-interventionists did not and do not support, and this idea has been so widely and thoroughly mocked across the political spectrum that it becomes a huge burden for any non-interventionist or conservative realist argument. Obviously, it also carries all of the baggage of opposition to U.S. entry into WWII and later efforts to re-litigate the wisdom of entering WWII, and Prof. Bacevich has been emphatic that he sees that as misguided. Perhaps most important, it is a smear based in the false equation between an internationally engaged foreign policy and a willingness to enter into unnecessary foreign wars. It would be a lie for someone who does not actually want autarky and isolation to claim to be an “isolationist.” Finally, it means accepting the terms of the debate set by the militarists, which means that the debate will be biased even more in their favor than it already is.
The advice to “let the haters hate” is basically an invitation to self-sabotage or an ambush. The only “fruit” that this would have produced would have been this: a steady stream of self-satisfied arguments from hawks that Bacevich had finally “admitted” to being a dreaded “isolationist” and could therefore be dismissed from serious conversation from now on. It’s worth noting that this passage comes in the part of Exum’s review of Bacevich’s new book in which he is stressing what he liked about the book.
I would mildly disagree by way of example. Look at the recent resurfacing of the once-discredited term “progressive”. The historical progressives of the early 20th century ran afoul by aligning themselves with communist and socialist policies and regimes, to the point where the term was simply abandoned for several decades because of those associations. Recently, however, many liberals have reconstructed themselves as “progressives” without fear of being associated with those old policies and mistakes. Their actual policies and alignment has little to do with the old movement of the same name, other than a liberal belief in the notion of “progress” towards a more liberal world.
But I can understand that the word “isolationist” has negative associations that are inherent to the word itself, rather than to the political tradition. Those, like Bacevich and yourself, who argue against the imperial hegemonist role for the US, don’t literally want to “isolate” the US (whereas liberals clearly do want to “progress” the US). So perhaps a better word is in order. But definitely some name or label is needed, and also a clear message defined, or there’s little chance for the movement to catch on or gain respect. Any ideas?
conradg, have you heard of Glenn Beck? He directly ties today’s progressives (meaning Democrats) to the early twentieth century, by way of Alinsky of course. And the only reason Democrats are flocking to “progressive” is the smearing of “liberal” has been complete. [This reminds me of an observation on modifiers to the left and right. Bleeding heart, limousine, latte, ... (help me out here). Staunch, rock-ribbed, even redneck is good. (more help here, too). Am I being biased? Do conservatives see this too? btw, a google search was unproductive besides finding an excerpt from George Lakoff. Great stuff]
As for “isolationist”, I totally agree with Daniel, but I do see a need to “own” a term. Non-interventionist doesn’t cut the mustard. Being a non- (negatively defined) is bad enough, but opposing “intervention” is adopting an already neutered term for invading another country. Like conradg, I don’t have any answers at the tip of my tongue, and I agree the problem is a serious one. Messaging matters. Especially for a small group that is easily marginalized. I’ll work on it. No, no need to thank me.
Beck ties liberal Dems to Hitler also, so it’s not a naming problem, it’s a Beck problem. You can’t let your enemies define you or shy away from names they try to tar and feather. I recall not long ago liberal itself had become a dirty word (and still is in tea party circles) until liberals just decided not to be ashamed of the word, regardless of what Beck and Limbaugh and others think. I think Exum is just responding to this kind of rhetorical blacklisting effort, and saying stick it back in their faces. Being cowardly in the face of sinister propaganda is not going to win any arguments.
And you’re right about “non”-anything. The fact that one can’t easily define, in positive terms, what Bacevich and Daniel are trying to describe suggests that as detailed as they might be in examining the matter, they haven’t boiled it down to a simple political viewpoint that people can get behind. It isn’t just a linguistic deficit, it’s a conceptual one.
And you’re right about “non”-anything. The fact that one can’t easily define, in positive terms, what Bacevich and Daniel are trying to describe suggests that as detailed as they might be in examining the matter, they haven’t boiled it down to a simple political viewpoint that people can get behind. It isn’t just a linguistic deficit, it’s a conceptual one.
I’m not sure about this. I’m more inclined to think that a reasonable and moderate approach to foreign policy has trouble competing against more extreme views which can be expressed with greater simplicity.
Saying, “We must defend freedom wherever it is under threat” or “We should never deploy our troops outside our own borders” is easy and clear because it substitutes an absolute and unchanging principle for a more detailed and difficult analysis of specific cases. And its doubly easy because rhetoric about, say, “freedom” is more or less understood by everybody to mean whatever the speaker wants it to mean. It’s just code for “We can do whatever we want because we’re always right”, and therefore there’s no point in dissecting what “freedom” actually is or how best to defend it.
Defining our foreign policy in terms of vital interests, which must be defended but which must and ought to be defended with restraint and the minimal possible amount of coercion and violence, raises all sorts of secondary questions about what our interests are, how to weigh those interests against the interests of other states and the well-being of people in other countries, etc. It requires that foreign policy be considered in terms of facts, and not in terms of abstract ideals or rhetoric.
I think this style of decision-making has a lot to recommend it as a philosophy of governance and foreign policy. But it’s more or less useless as a rallying cry or a campaign plank. I think “realism” is as good and positive a term for it as anything else. But having a decent name for it has not and will not make it more popular, since people do not and do not want to pay attention to foreign policy. Saying, “Here’s the one thing you need to know…” is always going to be more appealing to more people than trying to take things on a case-by-case basis. And, obviously, saying “My foreign policy platform is to defend America’s interests, consistent with American values,” will always be a loser because everyone from Charles Lindbergh to Dick Cheney says the exact same thing. It’s just that most people don’t really mean it.
Good post, and I agree with conrad, NS, and Charlie that a solid word or phrase is lacking, and “non-”something won’t do. With 2 national elections coming in the next 26 months, now would be a good time for some clever people to start working on names.
I’m not clever myself, but I think “limited-government” might be a good concept to start playing with. At least it might open the discussion with some Tea Party folks, turning on the question of why this idea should apply to domestic policy thoroughly but never to foreign policy. You might even get into some populism, i.e. “Why should I let those beaurocrats in Washington decide that my small town should be mobilized for war with some far-flung third world country?”, etc.
Another good “corporatese”-type word I’d like to nominate is “solutions”. At least as I’ve seen it used, this is the word that describes any process, resource, or methodology that gets done what you need to get done so that you can focus on what’s important to your business (e.g., vendors provide “IT solutions” for your stupid, annoying data maintenance problems). I think a party that offered plenty of “foreign policy solutions” without much ideology might be successful (at least maybe with executives).
Good suggestions. I think the reason people like Bacevich and Daniel don’t bother trying to come up with names and slogans that might appeal in the political arena is that they don’t think their ideas have much of a prayer in the political arena – especially among Republicans, who are dogmatically militaristic, and who have build over half of their political identity on the notion of defending America by being crazy-aggressive (tax cuts being the other half, not “limited government”).
I think this pessimism is self-fulfilling. When I suggest they haven’t taken their analysis far enough, it’s that it hasn’t been traced back to its emotional roots. Whatever the faults of the GOP, they know how to appeal to the emotional roots of an idea, which is where politics really happens, not in the intellect. And even liberals and progressive know how to make such appeals, when they get serious about politics. The problem here is that too many of these “neo-isolationists” – for want of a better word – are more comfortable with intellectual and academic analysis, rather than politics. Pat Buchanan is one of the few in that fold who knows how to appeal to emotion. His “Come home, America” slogan (was that it?) had some potential, but it’s not quite what people want.
I wouldn’t go the executive “solutions” route, however, in that this is also an analytical approach that bypasses emotion. It has no mass political appeal. It needs to be a brief description of the kind of country and world we want to live in. One of the most important lessons I was ever taught about writing is that unless you can boil an idea down to its most essential structure, you don’t really understand it. I think that goes here as well. And to understand these ideas down to the core, one has to understand the emotions they come from, and thus appeal to, not just the analytical force they might have in the mind.
I dunno, Exum lost me with “If I were him…”
Ouch! That grammar is painful. So I tuned him out…
BTW, What next from the erudite Exum? “Bacevich sucks.”?
P.S. I’m sure Frank Gaffney or Cliff May have a job for Exum in the Gas-Bagging Garden of Eden Beltway Paradise of Just Showing Up…
Bacevich couldn’t “own that smear” for a general reason that Mr. Larison suggests in his last paragraph. You can only “own a smear” when you have widespread sympathy among the media. Gays could own “queer” and feminists could own “bitch” because they had the media on their side. Mainstream conservatives cannot own “racist” because the media are not on their side. If Bacevich were to try to own “isolationist”, the result would be exactly as Mr. Larison says: “Look, he even admits it himself! Ha ha, what a crackpot.”
One minor but perhaps telling thing in the Exum quote that nobody mentioned: any time a Midwesterner takes a certain position, he’s all of a sudden the inheritor of a Midwestern tradition. Maybe I’m skeptical about that because I was born and raised in the “Show-Me State”. In Bacevich’s case this hayseed Midwestern tradition stuff is ridiculous. Bacevich is a convert to his current ideology. He used to be an orthodox Cold Warrior. He converted largely as a result of experiences overseas. Give me a break.
Bacevich’s overseas experiences were a while back. I thought he had long been a realist (when he was writing for magazines like First Things), and now he’s a particularly angry one drawn toward a radical critique of U.S foreign policy.