Liberals and War
By Kevin | Related entries in NewsIn response to a piece this week by Ezra Klein on “liberal hawks,” I asked whether or not the hawkish liberal was a genuine phenomenon, or in fact just the creation of the progressive isolationist (I think I should trademark that):
I think the progressive isolationist has in fact created a convenient strawman of their own. By bemoaning the “war narrative” of the “liberal hawks” and the “Neo-cons,” they can dismiss any and all arguments made in favor of taking a tough stance with Iran. If it’s a “war narrative,” rather than a diplomatic use of leverage against a very real enemy, well than all talk is suspect. Invading Iraq is hawkish. Staying in Iraq is hawkish. Talking tough to a totalitarian (and he is a totalitarian, Ezra) becomes the same as President Bush mismanaging the war in Iraq. It becomes the same as failing to capture Osama Bin Laden, or aligning ourselves with obviously dubious regimes like Pakistan and Saudi Arabia. To the progressive isolationist, any and all talk involving our military is apparently what distinguishes the “liberal hawk” from just a plain old liberal.
You can read my thoughts in full here. I believe this is one of the many problems synonymous with the modern Democratic Party. The truth of the matter is that there should be plenty of room for both the so-called hawks and the so-called progressives. Equating military action against Iran with “hawkish liberalism” strikes me as an oxymoron. Liberals have always been hawks, and have always fought wars that stretched beyond our own immediate security concerns.
Am I on crazy pills? Does the moderate readership of Donklephant have anything more to add to this?
This entry was posted on Saturday, June 16th, 2007 and is filed under News. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.
June 17th, 2007 at 12:40 am
It’s the weekend Kevin, so don’t sweat fewer responses. This has been a particularly slow weekend for some reason.
I do think liberal hawks are a reality. I mean, Roosevelt, Truman, Kennedy…hell, even Clinton…the trend is there. I just think that liberals think our policy now hurts our supremacy in the world, especially after Vietnam, and so the backlash.
To me, Iran is a losing proposition, and I don’t think I’m alone in this with Dems or Repubs.
June 17th, 2007 at 3:45 pm
[...] Ezra Klein has written about the writings of liberal hawks to avoid admitting their mistakes on Iraq with a response from Kevin Sullivan which quotes heavily from John Kerry. Michael van der Galien weighs in (here and here) but inadvertently demonstrates the whole problem of speaking of hawks versus doves. Michael writes: The problem with the doves is that they oppose using military force, because it is military force. For us hawks, military force is a tool – a tool you will only use when all other tools fail on you, but a tool nonetheless. I find it incredibly strange that there are people who want the US government, or individual candidates, to rule out (supporting) the use of force. [...]
June 18th, 2007 at 12:23 am
I agree Justin, there are no good, quick, or clean military options with Iran. Should we have to go that route it’ll just be a choice of evils
June 18th, 2007 at 12:28 am
Well, we go off fighting wars at our economic and moral peril. War is messy and in this new information age there is an enormous amount of transparency…and transparency and war don’t usually mix.
We have to let Iran work out Iran’s problems. We go in there and start bombing, we’re going to turn potential friends within that country into enemies…and I’m speaking here about the people of Iran, not the politcos.
At the end of the day, I didn’t believe in the Bush Doctrine when it was first presented, and I don’t believe in it now. And I think you can be a liberal hawk, believe in righting wrongs around the world through military intervention and still think the Bush Doctrine is naive and ill conceived policy that should be reversed sooner rather than later.
June 18th, 2007 at 1:27 am
Liberal Hawks and the Iran Debate
Ezra Klein over at The American Prospect recently wrote an article called “Let’s Get Serious: What do liberal hawks actually want to do regarding Iran?” that has stirred an interesting cross blog debate amongst moderates. Allow me to sort of abridge…
June 18th, 2007 at 9:24 am
How many of the Democratic candidates will come out and say, “We simply have to accept a nuclear-armed Iran”?
June 19th, 2007 at 2:17 pm
I love how these pundits create boxes for people and then slap a label on them. I have never found any group to be that easy to categorize other than in extremely general terms. I think the term “liberal hawk� falls under the no such thing category.