Why It's Time for Truman Democrats
On the morning of November 2, 2004, Americans gazed upon a dangerous world. Iran and North Korea, implacable enemies and terrorist financiers, were on the cusp of becoming nuclear powers -- if they were not already. The 9/11 Commission had declared our intelligence system broken. Civilians were being kidnapped in Afghanistan, Americans vacationing in friendly countries were stunned by the vehemence of anti-Americanism, and staunch allies were forced by domestic opinion to pull their troops from serving alongside our own in Iraq. A four-year record of such foreign policy should have been a gift to Democrats. Instead, the election turned on two issues: national security and values -- and Democrats lost.
The fact that the incumbent president could win with such a record speaks to the dire situation Democrats face in national security. The problem is not new: since the late 1960s, polls show increasing American distrust for Democrats on security issues. But it is now urgent. Democrats owe it to the American people to provide a serious alternative to Republican policies that are making us less safe.
As the candidates in the Democratic primary painted themselves into their traditional corners, a new movement was born within the Democratic Party. The Truman National Security Project formed to provide America with a strong, principled foreign policy, one which would return the Democratic Party to the national security preeminence held under Roosevelt, Truman, and Kennedy.
The leaders of the Truman National Security Project come from a new generation, a cohort whose defining moments are not the Vietnam War and the culture wars, but the fall of the Berlin Wall and the collapse of the Twin Towers. In the space of a few months, we have grown to a force of hundreds through word of mouth alone. We have found support among established Democratic leaders who are committed to strength born from values, and who have labored for the cause alone in past Democratic administrations, think tanks, business, and journalism. We call ourselves Truman Democrats, because we believe President Truman has much to teach us at the cusp of a new age.
Truman believed that a strong foreign policy was one that combined the traditional tools of strength with values that offered hope, justice, and opportunity at home and abroad. Truman Democrats likewise believe the future of the Democratic Party lies in uniting strength with the principles that make us Democrats.
Too often, when Democrats reach for strength, they offer policies that are Republican-lite. But our way cannot -- must not -- be to echo Republican policies that are making our nation less safe, our path more solitary. We are not neo-conservatives: we disagree with their fundamental ideas over what constitutes power, and how American power should be deployed. While neoconservatives lionize military power and disdain world opinion, we believe power is multifaceted. Our troops cannot root out terrorist networks in Europe; American air raids cannot change the minds of children growing up in an environment of hate. Military power is crucial -- but without allies, moral legitimacy, a strong economy, and the ability to influence hearts and minds abroad, it gives us very little power indeed. Neoconservatives call for hard American strength at all costs, and thus fail to gain the very goal they work toward. Truman Democrats call for strength through a more generous, compelling vision of society, a vision that is not created out of reaction to conservative ideas, but is crafted out of Democratic values.
The first step in our vision is to accept the crucial role that American hard security plays in creating a world where people can thrive and opportunity can grow in safety. In countries worldwide, our armed forces provide the deterrent that creates peace and enables people to thrive without fear of war. Intelligence is essential to meeting the terrorist threat with the most minimal bloodshed to ourselves and to those living in states where terrorists hide. Strong military and intelligence services also provide teeth to our diplomacy; it is this threat of force that gives our diplomats strength when we stand up to governments that abuse the human rights of their people. We cannot use our military frivolously. But we must understand that weakness invites aggression. We owe it to our soldiers to accept the critical part power plays in promoting our security, and the security of other nations. These brave men and women deserve two parties that understand their needs, support their patriotism, and uphold their rights.
Second, we need to expand democracy, and the economic conditions that enable liberty to flourish. Democratization is not an American imperial venture. It is the essential counterpart to promoting human rights. The European Union has enshrined democracy, the rule of law, and human rights as essential values that it promotes in its dealings with all countries. The development economist Amartya Sen has demonstrated that only democracies have been able to prevent the worst evils of poverty, such as mass famine. Not only is liberty a moral good. It is now essential for international security. Authoritarianism breeds the anger and hopelessness that radical leaders can exploit for terrorist recruitment. American support for these regimes turns this anger against us. People do not easily forgive a country that has handed their government the stick with which they are beaten.
Democratization through force -- the neoconservative way -- does not work, and is not morally justifiable. Stable, liberal democracies do not emerge from the barrel of a gun, nor do they emerge from pushing overnight revolution. They grow from what de Tocqueville termed "habits of the heart": ways of thinking, behaving, and contributing to the public sphere. As Vaclev Havel and the other playwrights and poets who pushed down the Berlin Wall can tell us, liberty grows when people within a country become citizens, when they choose to take responsibility for their own societies. America has a duty to help these individuals free themselves.
Third, we must reinvigorate strong, standing security alliances. When Truman formed NATO, he did so in the belief that "no one nation can find protection in a selfish search for safe haven from the storm." In a world where terrorists can hide in any country, where the arms trade is worldwide, and where illicit financial transactions are global, our security lies in convincing the world that we share a common threat. We cannot build a fortress around America; there will always be chinks in our armor. Instead, we must build a worldwide net with our allies that will capture terrorists and smuggled weapons wherever they are.
Fourth, achieving our foreign policy aims requires us to pay heed to the opinion of the world, to act with legitimacy. When we disdain the norms of the rest of the developed world, we create a dangerous situation in which other nations wish us ill. While they cannot balance against our military, they can fail to cooperate in our alliances, undermining our efforts to present a strong, united front against terrorism. We already see such dangerous balancing behavior in dealing with Iran, North Korea, and Israel. We cannot force other countries to assist in our security unless we are willing to honor the rules we wish them to follow.
Fifth, we must reduce protectionism at home, while being more generous and strategic with development aid abroad. Free trade and development aid are two sides of the same coin, tools of national security that fight state weakness, poverty, corruption, and social breakdown -- problems that terrorists exploit to strengthen their support. Promoting free trade is also a means for breaking authoritarian regimes' control over their economies and societies. But free trade is a problem in our party -- too many Democrats think that populism and protectionism helps poor Americans. In fact, it does serious damage: an American family earning $25,000 now spends nearly three days worth of after-tax pay on protectionist subsidies and tariffs. American workers should be assisted not with protectionism, but with a social safety net of programs such as job training and adjustment assistance that would enable them to switch to growing fields.
Finally, the fundamentals of our strength lie in our values and freedoms at home. George Kennan knew this at the start of the Cold War. We know today that we help our enemies when we harass honest immigrants in the name of security, or curtail the civil rights of our people. Turning innocent individuals against us, and dismantling the freedoms our country is based upon, is no way to achieve security.
Meeting the threats of the 21st century requires us to create a world where opportunity and freedom can thrive in the sanctuary of security. Such a world calls for a real commitment to liberty, human rights, and development abroad. It calls for us to accept the reality of the threat we face, and to provide our soldiers and the intelligence community with the tools and training they need to do their jobs well. And it calls on us to master our fear and uphold the liberties at home that make us a nation we are proud of. This is the creed that unites Truman Democrats.