Skip to main content

Murphy On The Battlements


US Senator Chris Murphy, who has been in the Senate only a little more than  two years and two weeks, is now “Desperately Seeking A Progressive Foreign Policy,” the tile of a column the senator wrote on his new blog.

According to Mr. Murphy, the modern progressive movement is still in its swaddling clothes. The new movement was “founded on foreign policy” after Democrats had spent a couple of decades "in the wilderness during the era of the Democratic Leadership Council… in the early days of the Iraq war.”


The modern progressive movement, Mr. Murphy writes, sprang from Howard Dean’s presidential bid in 2004, during which time “progressives mounted their first serious assault in years on the conventional thought hegemony by challenging the neoconservative foreign policy vision. Many of today’s icons of the progressive movement — MoveOn, Democracy for America, Daily Kos — arguably originate from this fight. Today’s progressives were molded in the fire of foreign, not domestic, policy.”

The young progressive movement now has become reactive, “absent, from serious, meaningful foreign policy debates.” Progressives have been unwilling to engage in such debates in part because there has been for the last few years a Democrat in the White House. Mr. Murphy does not point out in his maiden progressive articulation that President Barack Obama is possibly the most progressive chief executive since Woodrow Wilson left the White House in 1921. Progressives have understandably deferred to the Commander in Chief “when it comes to articulating views on international events.” While such deference to President Barack Obama is proper, less understandable is the thoughtless rubbernecking among progressives.

The dominance of US Senators John McCain and Rand Paul and Mr. Obama ought to concern progressives, according to the movement’s new John the Baptist, “because none of these three camps adequately represents the views of most American progressives.”

Mr. Murphy rejects neo-conservativism robustly as “a non-starter” a “philosophy of knee jerk military intervention” and “the original motivating force behind the modern progressive voice.” Isolationism is likewise repugnant “as most progressives believe in America playing a positive role in the world. We simply believe that we should lean into the world with something other than the pointed edge of a sword.”

Mr. Obama struck a responsive chord in his May 2014 West Point speech, “where he prioritized the use of our military for counterterrorism efforts and emphasized the need to strengthen rule of law and human rights in developing nations.” However, “we break with him on rather substantial questions like domestic surveillance, drone attacks, and most recently, military intervention in Syria.”

From the battlements, Mr. Murphy shouts out orders to his progressive troops: “It’s time for progressives to outline a coherent, proactive foreign policy vision, (emphasis original).”

The organizing principles of Mr. Murphy’s progressive vision, he writes, would involve: a) “A substantial transfer of financial resources from the military budget to buttress diplomacy and foreign aid so that our global anti-poverty budget, not our military budget, equals that of the other world powers combined,” b) “A new humility to our foreign policy, with less emphasis on short- term influencers like military intervention and aid [which Mr. Murphy highly recommended in a)] and more effort spent trying to address the root causes of conflict,” c) “An end to unchecked mass surveillance programs, at home and abroad, as part of a new recognition that we are safer as a nation when we aren’t so easily labeled as hypocrites for preaching and practicing vastly differently on human and civil rights,” and d) “a categorical rejection of torture, under any circumstances.”

A rapid implementation of Mr. Murphy’s principled vision is necessary because “We are entering well into the fourth month of unauthorized U.S. military actions in Iraq and Syria amidst calls from the new Republican Senate majority to send ground troops back to the Middle East” and “fragile negotiations to end Iran’s nuclear weapons” program are under threat “from good-intentioned but misguided efforts to pass new sanctions legislation through Congress.”

These pressing issues “cry out for a coherent progressive response. But where we end up isn't as important as committing to the journey. In the coming months, progressives need to commit ourselves to a process that articulates this new set of ideas. The world is a mess, and while there is no simple pill America can administer to fix things, what we know is that there is significant room for progressives to articulate a foreign policy vision that is truly our own.”


Foreign policy – especially the Ouija board variety practiced by Mr. Obama, to whom progressives have so often deferred – is indeed a messy business, particularly now that Mr. Obama is determined to pursue in the Middle East a policy of accommodation that will upset neither Iran, a growing Middle East peace broker, or Iran’s patron, President Of Russia Vladimir Putin, the vanquisher of Ukraine. The tender feelings of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu are less important.

A recent request to the Congress from Mr. Obama for additional presidential authority to prosecute a war against ISIS, a terrorist group that beheads American Journalists, murders American aid workers and crucifies Christians, would seem to violate Murphy principle a), since both the Congressional authority and the funds necessary to prosecute a war against ISIS for at least three years certainly would not involve a “transfer of financial resources from the military budget to buttress diplomacy.” It would also violate Murphy principle b), which calls for a new humility that emphasizes a greater “effort spent trying to address the root causes of conflict” rather than investing time and money on “on short- term influencers like military intervention and aid.” Still we are left with the two remaining principles of Mr. Murphy’s progressive vision as yet unassaulted by the progressive Mr. Obama or non-progressives in the US Congress. Rand Paul, an arch libertarian, has come out strongly against c), snoops hiding in the telephone receivers of average Americans, and Mr. Obama has long favored assassination, death by drone, to torture. It turns out that the progressive principles enunciated by Mr. Murphy in his progressive blog are not all that cutting edge.


Progressives within the Democratic Party may want to start looking for a new John the Baptist.


Comments

peter brush said…
Christopher Scott "Chris" Murphy (born August 3, 1973)
---------
He's no doubt made up for it with lots of reading and intense briefing from experts, but Murphy's first hand experience of our foreign affairs is quite recent, if not brief. In 1973 Israel was attacked by Syria and Egypt, Russian allies both. He was born as we were giving up in the Greater Vietnam Metro Area. He can't have vivid memories of communist Cambodia, and the minor genocide there. American post-wwii hegemony and leadership in the worldwide fight against communism ? Murphy was only 18 when the Berlin Wall Fell. The celebrations at Williams College were probably even more subdued than those put on by President GHW Bush.

Modesty is a virtue.The Cold War against international communism has been over for more than twenty years. Let's assess our position. What are our national interests and how are they best served? What alliances are desirable and/or practical? (Are we really going to send the troops in the event Russia assaults Estonia? Or, more likely, will Obama drop a desultory bomb and ratchet down the sanctions?) Senator Murphy should disabuse himself of the idea that American hegemony should be maintained, but with an updated, progressive, internationalist, kinder/gentler purpose. It is our national interests that should be clarified and protected. In the doing there's a very good chance that the world will be better off as well. The young Senator's agenda looks rather like Making the World Safe for a Nutmeg Welfare State dedicated to the proposition that We Should Be Equally Nice.
peter brush said…
Check that; I learned arithmetic in public school. Murph was only 16 when the Berlin Wall went down.
In any case, his lack of experience doesn't make him any more unqualified than those in his Party who experienced the Cold War but seem not to have drawn any, or at least the right, conclusions.
peter brush said…
What concerns Murphy is the addition of “a bunch of more radical Republicans in the GOP ranks.”
“The momentum that the tea party could get tonight is really what has been keeping me up at night,” Murphy said.
-------------
“A substantial transfer of financial resources from the military budget to buttress diplomacy and foreign aid so that our global anti-poverty budget, not our military budget, equals that of the other world powers combined,”
----------------
I would think with Benjamin Netanyahu coming to speak about what the world will look like if and when Iran gets nuclear weapons, this would be the perfect time to really show how progressive we are. Our military service people are obviously being badly treated by their employer (the Republican corporate militarists). Why not unionize them as we in Connecticut have done with our cops decades ago. If we paid them more and gave them proper medical benefits we'd have less money for gratuitous military interventions; a real win-win.

Popular posts from this blog

The Blumenthal Burisma Connection

Steve Hilton , a Fox News commentator who over the weekend had connected some Burisma corruption dots, had this to say about Connecticut U.S. Senator Dick Blumenthal’s association with the tangled knot of corruption in Ukraine: “We cross-referenced the Senate co-sponsors of Ed Markey's Ukraine gas bill with the list of Democrats whom Burisma lobbyist, David Leiter, routinely gave money to and found another one -- one of the most sanctimonious of them all, actually -- Sen. Richard Blumenthal."

Powell, the JI, And Economic literacy

Powell, Pesci Substack The Journal Inquirer (JI), one of the last independent newspapers in Connecticut, is now a part of the Hearst Media chain. Hearst has been growing by leaps and bounds in the state during the last decade. At the same time, many newspapers in Connecticut have shrunk in size, the result, some people seem to think, of ad revenue smaller newspapers have lost to internet sites and a declining newspaper reading public. Surviving papers are now seeking to recover the lost revenue by erecting “pay walls.” Like most besieged businesses, newspapers also are attempting to recoup lost revenue through staff reductions, reductions in the size of the product – both candy bars and newspapers are much smaller than they had been in the past – and sell-offs to larger chains that operate according to the social Darwinian principles of monopolistic “red in tooth and claw” giant corporations. The first principle of the successful mega-firm is: Buy out your predator before he swallows

Down The Rabbit Hole, A Book Review

Down the Rabbit Hole How the Culture of Corrections Encourages Crime by Brent McCall & Michael Liebowitz Available at Amazon Price: $12.95/softcover, 337 pages   “ Down the Rabbit Hole: How the Culture of Corrections Encourages Crime ,” a penological eye-opener, is written by two Connecticut prisoners, Brent McCall and Michael Liebowitz. Their book is an analytical work, not merely a page-turner prison drama, and it provides serious answers to the question: Why is reoffending a more likely outcome than rehabilitation in the wake of a prison sentence? The multiple answers to this central question are not at all obvious. Before picking up the book, the reader would be well advised to shed his preconceptions and also slough off the highly misleading claims of prison officials concerning the efficacy of programs developed by dusty old experts who have never had an honest discussion with a real convict. Some of the experts are more convincing cons than the cons, p