Can the empire strike back?

This weekend, while cleaning off some old bookshelves, I discovered a book by journalist Mark Shields, On the Campaign Trail, published in 1985.

In the 1984 primary season, Colorado Senator Gary Hart emerged from virtual oblivion to provide a serious challenge against former Vice President Walter Mondale for the Democratic nomination for president. Hart was likened to JFK, as Shields notes (p. 31).

Meanwhile, Shields referred pejoratively to Mondale's "Imperial Candidacy" (p. 27), built on years of insider politics and the presumption of inevitability. Sound familiar?

These excerpts are from pp. 24-28:

TO: Walter F. Mondale
FROM: Mark Shields, Washington Post, March 1984

Sir: ...Cannot overemphasize now that time is not your ally. Incredible as it may seem after all you've accomplished over the last two years, this nomination can get away from you by the end of this month. This weekend you are still on the slippery slope. Urgent action is required.

The heart of the matter is this: Americans, which includes Democrats, are mostly incurable optimists. They equate change with improvement. For fifty years, Democrats generally represented change in the nation's politics.

...Gary Hart seized the change side of the equation in this year's Democratic presidential politics...television has told the whole country that Hart is the candidate of "the future" and "new ideas," while some of your supporters have demonstrated the eloquence of an OSHA regulation for water closets....

In politics, only the candidate -- you -- can give a campaign clear definition and meaning for the voters. You have failed to do this so far, but you simply must do it before March 20. You must take personal responsibility for defining your campaign...

You simply cannot run on a program of restoring Reagan's budget cuts...and repeal of the third year of the Reagan tax cut.

...Tell voters where you want to lead our nation: Give them your vision for the future -- a vision larger than any legislative program and based on values. Articulate our national interest and what we must all do to protect it and make the world a safer place. Patriotism means more than just paying higher taxes. Summon the best in all of us to make a more just American family.

Mondale went on to defeat Hart -- his success is attributed in great part to his asking Hart, "Where's the beef?," but Mondale got blown out of the water by Ronald Reagan in November.


Visit this blog's homepage.

Where's the beef?

In the 1984 election cycle, former Vice President Walter Mondale (the well-known and well-funded establishment candidate) faced insurgent charismatic newcomer Gary Hart. To stress that Hart's impressive-sounding ideas lacked substance, Mondale jokingly used a line from a popular Wendy's commercial: "Where's the beef?"

In her effort to stop the Barack Obama juggernaut, Hillary Clinton's campaign has borrowed this tactic from Mondale's 1984 campaign. To my ear, it's not as simple or elegant:

"That's the difference between me and my opponent. My opponent makes speeches. I offer solutions. It is one thing to get people excited. I want to empower you," the New York senator said....

"Now, over the years, you've heard plenty of promises from plenty of people in plenty of speeches. And some of those speeches were probably pretty good. But speeches don't put food on the table. Speeches don't fill up your tank, or fill your prescription, or do anything about that stack of bills that keeps you up at night," Clinton said.

I put the most incendiary sound bite in red -- look for it in Republican commercials next fall.

Based on the economic content Obama added to his stump speech today, I do not expect this charge to stick.


Visit this blog's homepage.

The Coalition for a Realistic Foreign Policy

I finally checked out the web pages for the nonpartisan Coalition for a Realistic Foreign Policy. The group includes several dozen foreign policy scholars and analysts. This text is from their "About us" link:

The Coalition for a Realistic Foreign Policy is a group of scholars, policy makers and concerned citizens united by our opposition to an American empire. The Coalition is dedicated to promoting an alternative vision for American national security strategy that is consistent with American traditions and values.

Here are the lead paragraphs from their Statement of Principles:

Against the backdrop of an ever-bloodier conflict in Iraq, American foreign policy is moving in a dangerous direction toward empire.

Worrisome imperial trends are apparent in the Bush administration's National Security Strategy. That document pledges to maintain America's military dominance in the world, and it does so in a way that encourages other nations to form countervailing coalitions and alliances. We can expect, and are seeing now, multiple balances of power forming against us. People resent and resist domination, no matter how benign.

Of particular interest to me is the Coalition's call for debate as a means for people to resist the move toward empire:

The need for a change in direction is particularly urgent because imperial policies can quickly gain momentum, with new interventions begetting new dangers and, thus, the demand for further actions. If current trends are allowed to continue, we may well end up with an empire that most Americans-especially those whose sons and daughters are, or will be, sent into harm's way-don't really favor. The issue must be the subject of a broad public debate. The time for debate is now.

The American people have not embraced the idea of an American empire, and they are unlikely to do so. Since rebelling against the British Empire, Americans have resisted the imperial impulse, guided by the Founders' frequent warnings that republic and empire are incompatible. Empire is problematic because it subverts the freedoms and liberties of citizens at home while simultaneously thwarting the will of people abroad. An imperial strategy threatens to entangle America in an assortment of unnecessary and unrewarding wars.

As I've noted before, many international relations (IR) theorists think that public debate about foreign policy doesn't matter much, as states will simply pursue power/interest/security.

In any case, the list of signatories is fairly impressive and includes a lot of IR scholars:

Robert J. Art, Brandeis University
Andrew Bacevich, Boston University
Richard K. Betts, Columbia University
Seyom Brown, Brandeis University
Michael Desch, The University of Kentucky
Eugene Gholz, University of Kentucky
David Hendrickson, Colorado College
Robert Jervis, Columbia University
Charles Kupchan, Georgetown University
James Kurth, Swarthmore College
John J. Mearsheimer, University of Chicago
Daniel Nelson, University of New Haven
Robert Paarlberg, Wellesley College
Barry R. Posen, Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Jack L. Snyder, Columbia University
Robert W. Tucker, Johns Hopkins University
Stephen Van Evera, Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Stephen Walt, Harvard University
Kenneth N. Waltz, Columbia University

Disclosure: I have been on panels or worked with many of the people on that list.

The list also includes Doug Bandow (former Special Assistant to President Ronald Reagan), Ted Galen Carpenter and several other people from the Cato Institute, former US Senators Mike Gravel (Alaska) and Gary Hart (Colorado), Theresa Hitchens (Center for Defense Information, or CDI), and journalists from both The American Prospect, and The American Conservative.

Again: People from CDI and Cato? Progressive and Conservative? Republicans and Democrats? In IR terms, idealists and realists?

Ultimately, the group plans to host conferences and policy forums, publish articles, and appear in the media to advance their viewpoint.

I hope they find an eager audience.

How do I join?