Progressives Are Starting to Define a New Realism for Our National-Security Strategy

Progressives Are Starting to Define a New Realism for Our National-Security Strategy

Progressives Are Starting to Define a New Realism for Our National-Security Strategy

The weakest response of Democrats to Trump would be to defend the old foreign-policy consensus.

Facebook
Twitter
Email
Flipboard
Pocket

EDITOR’S NOTE: Each week we cross-post an excerpt from Katrina vanden Heuvel’s column at the WashingtonPost.com. Read the full text of Katrina’s column here.

Although presidential campaigns generally home in on kitchen table concerns, 2020 is likely to feature a long-overdue debate on US foreign and national security strategy. The failures of the national security establishment—endless wars without victory, the global financial collapse, neglect of emerging existential threats such as catastrophic climate change—make a reassessment inevitable. Now progressives in Congress and on the campaign trail are beginning to define a new realism that contrasts sharply with both the keepers of old orthodoxy and President Trump’s posturing.

Trump’s fulminations against failed military interventions, perverse trade policies, and growing tensions with Russia surely helped him in the 2016 campaign. But “America First” turned out to be a bumper sticker, not a strategy. Knee-jerk opposition to all things Barack Obama—torpedoing US involvement in the Paris climate accord, the Iranian nuclear agreement and the opening to Cuba—isn’t a recipe for making America great again. “Great nations do not fight endless wars,” Trump noted in his recent State of the Union address, but thus far he remains engaged in a fight to pull troops out of Afghanistan and Syria, while doubling down in Yemen and inflating Iran to an existential threat. Launching trade conflicts while giving multinational companies new tax incentives to ship jobs abroad has also generated more noise than change.

The new progressive challenge begins with a call for restraint, starting with terminating wars without end. A first foray—led by Representative Ro Khanna in the House and Senators Christopher Murphy (D-CN) and Bernie Sanders (I-VT) in the Senate—invokes congressional war powers to end US involvement in the gruesome assault on Yemen by Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates. (This has even received bipartisan support from conservatives such as Senator Mike Lee, Republican of Utah.) Khanna is also leading a broader debate among progressives sponsoring, along with the Congressional Progressive Caucus, a forum this week. (Disclosure: I will be participating.)

Read the full text of Katrina’s column here.

Thank you for reading The Nation

We hope you enjoyed the story you just read, just one of the many incisive, deeply-reported articles we publish daily. Now more than ever, we need fearless journalism that shifts the needle on important issues, uncovers malfeasance and corruption, and uplifts voices and perspectives that often go unheard in mainstream media.

Throughout this critical election year and a time of media austerity and renewed campus activism and rising labor organizing, independent journalism that gets to the heart of the matter is more critical than ever before. Donate right now and help us hold the powerful accountable, shine a light on issues that would otherwise be swept under the rug, and build a more just and equitable future.

For nearly 160 years, The Nation has stood for truth, justice, and moral clarity. As a reader-supported publication, we are not beholden to the whims of advertisers or a corporate owner. But it does take financial resources to report on stories that may take weeks or months to properly investigate, thoroughly edit and fact-check articles, and get our stories into the hands of readers.

Donate today and stand with us for a better future. Thank you for being a supporter of independent journalism.

Ad Policy
x