As regular readers of Shadow Government know, we here at
the blog don't take an official "house position" on particular issues, but
rather try to present thoughtful commentary from the vantage point of those who
have served in foreign policy roles in a Republican administration. Often we
will agree amongst ourselves on a particular issue, but just as often we might
find disagreements among ourselves as well. Likewise, we might find ourselves
disagreeing with a particular course of action or emphasis of the Obama administration
-- and saying so -- but it is also not unusual to find posts from Shadow
Government contributors agreeing with, and even applauding, a White House
policy step. In short, national security policy does not always fall easily
along party lines. Our foremost priorities at Shadow Government are to speak
out on what we think is best for our country, and to do so in a constructive
and civil manner. Civility doesn't preclude being hard-hitting at times, but it
does mean focusing on the issues rather than maligning the opposing side. Not
to mention being mindful that we might on occasion be wrong.
Two items from this past week prompted me to
reflect on the possibilities of bipartisanship in foreign policy, and one of
its correlates, civility. The first is this thoughtful post by
David Shorr over at Democracy Arsenal on "More Ideas for a Constructive Foreign
Policy Debate." Shorr relates some trenchant remarks from a recent conference
he attended, in which Rich Williamson urged a bipartisan U.S. commitment to
human rights promotion, and Bruce Jentleson offered some leavened insights on
the sometimes contentious subject of the relationship between the United States'
international reputation and policy leverage. Shorr concludes with an appeal
for all parties to resist impugning motives and focus instead on
problem-solving: "Here's the choice: we can keep arguing over whether the US
needs to burnish its moral authority, or we can look at the dilemmas bedeviling
our country's international challenges."
The second item is the
announcement by Senator Joe Lieberman that he won't be seeking re-election in
2012. When it comes to national security policy, Senator Lieberman has for more
than the past decade been one of the most visible exemplars of bipartisanship. Heir
to a distinguished tradition of hawkish Democrats such as Scoop Jackson and
Harry Truman, he will be missed for his personal decency as much as his
independence of mind. I first came to appreciate Senator Lieberman when I
worked on Capitol Hill in the 1990s, and he provided crucial bipartisan sponsorship -- and active support -- for the 1998 International Religious Freedom Act (known also and appropriately as the "Nickles-Lieberman" bill). As
David
Brooks points out today, the peculiar dynamics of politics often meant that
Lieberman's conservative foreign policy stances actually abetted his liberal
positions on domestic policy. I know very few people of either party who agree
with him all of the time, but even fewer who don't appreciate his civility,
goodwill, and patriotism.
Read More
(1)
HIDE COMMENTS LOGIN OR REGISTER REPORT ABUSE