Daniel, haven't you read David Brooks? The "neoconservatives believed to be currently running U.S. foreign policy" are a figment of the Democrats' imagination.

Entertaining, despite its rather hyperbolic title.

“Read the entire piece to see how AFL-CIO and the Democratic Leadership Council are handling the Deaniacs in their midst.”

I doubt very much if most blog readers can read this TNR article. It is subscription based and I may be one of the few people posting comments who has paid the annual fee of about $20.00.

“Over the last 20 years, there have been few things the labor movement and the centrist DLC have agreed upon. But Howard Dean's implosion has brought the protectionist unions and the free-trade-loving DLC together on at least one thing: their disdain for pro-Dean heretics in their midst.”

Franklin Foer erroneously believes that the “free-trade-loving DLC” folks still have a place in today’s Democrat Party. This is utterly false. The Brad DeLongs are now “Bush Lite” heretics to be hunted down and eradicated. Only those who are strongly protectionist will have a place at the table.

“Dean identified himself as the champion of the "Democratic wing of the Democratic Party"--implying that the DLC, and centrist Democrats in general, were quasi-Republicans”

Howard Dean has probably lost the battle for his party’s nomination---but he won the war for its heart and soul. The Democrat Party is now committed to the positions of its left of center adherents.

What am I thinking? I forgot to mention in my previous post the perhaps most important dogma of today’s Democrat Party: the United Nations is ultimately to decide when the United States should take military action! France and the Old Europeans supposedly represent true human values while we are reactionary, capitalist war mongers. The Democrats are now the “we are ashamed of being American” party. This is what essentially John Kerry said some thirty years ago. Please also note that the liberal media don’t ask him any questions on these earlier stated views. The reason, of course, is that this is what these journalists subconsciously, if not even consciously, believe.

David Thomson,
your anti-UN rants are tiring and so predictable.

"The Democrat Party is now committed to the positions of its left of center adherents."

So ? Why the feigned surprise ? We have two parties and it's undeniable that the Republican Party is now committed to the positions of its right of center adherents.

"The Democrats are now the “we are ashamed of being American” party."

Suffice it to say: BULLSHIT. I am ashamed of this administration, not of being American. And if you support the Bush crew, I am ashamed of YOU as well.

We are really looking at three related but distinct things here. One is advisers to candidates who are the architects of those candidates' foreign policy views; another is advisers supporting candidates they feel reflect their own views already; and the third is advisers who are working with candidates because they hope to gain influential positions in the government if their guy is elected.

Anyone advising Howard Dean must be assumed to fall into category A right off the bat -- as far as we know this former governor of Vermont had tabula rasa with respect to thinking on foreign policy before sometime in 2001. The neoconservatives supporting John McCain were mostly in category B, as McCain had strongly defined views on foreign policy already when he ran for President. Both groups could be in category C -- though Dean was a long shot to start with and the neoconservatives ended up in Bush with a President who gave them much more of a free hand with American foreign policy than McCain would have done.

My own thinking is that it is a bad idea for a foreign policy expert who is not on intimate terms with a Presidential candidate to be too deeply involved in the conduct of that candidate's campaign. The expert's credibility is his most precious asset; it is unwise to jeopardize it by wading into Presidential campaign politics, a field for which hardly any foreign policy experts are trained and one in which they are badly out of their depth (if Daalder's quoted comments don't suggest he was in over his head when he got involved in campaign politics they don't suggest anything). It's all right to provide advice, but this ought to be given at a distance, and the expert's public statements ought to deal with ideas, never personalities.

Foreign policy is not the only field where this is true, either.

My Dear ch2:

The UN itself is a fine place for representatives of all nations to get together and seem to do something important in a general way. It’s a place to pass resolutions, devise schemes intended to help developing nations, and feel like one’s tiny or not so tiny country is making a difference. But when something really important needs to be done, say like preventing Serbs from massacring Moslems in Srebrenica or taking effective means to end malaria, the UN is impotent.

UN middle and upper management consists primarily of rent-seekers, folks who’ve left their godforsaken lands for the Big Apple, great salary, and free parking, not to mention no taxes, nice expense accounts, and little accountability.

Let’s say you’re the regional UN rep for, oh, Africa, and you are warned by your folks on the ground that the Hutus are planning on killing all of the Tutsis. While some of your folks have a pretty good idea of what it might take to prevent mass murders, you talk to a few folks and find that it would just be too much trouble, so you do worse than nothing by ordering your folks out and 800,000 Tutsis die. While that might be a career-killer at GE, GM, and maybe even the EU, it turns out to be a resume-enhancer and wins for you the role of General Secretary at the UN.

Membership is not restricted to democratic nations only, all you need to be is a country. It’s a political body that can unite only on the least common denominator of its members. Membership on committees has to be seen as equitable, so no one thinks it funny to have a repressive dictatorship on its human rights committee. In the halls and chambers large nations can lead the rest in developing some plan while working assiduously in the real world at cross-purposes. The UN is a stage where drama, comedy, and farce play repeatedly, and sometimes simultaneously.

Now, ch2, here’s a test. Whom do you think that the natives of some village in Sudan, Iran, Syria, Rwanda, or Rwalter would rather welcome: the UN or the 82nd Airborne?

You have 8.5 months to answer.

Now, ch2, here’s a test. Whom do you think that the natives of some village in Sudan, Iran, Syria, Rwanda, or Rwalter would rather welcome: the UN or the 82nd Airborne?

Sorry to jump in with a hint ch2, but my guess:

Probably niether.

“David Thomson,
your anti-UN rants are tiring and so predictable.”

But are they accurate? That’s the real question. Moreover, that is the unavoidable question we must make sure that John Kerry answers. Does he still believe that the United States needs approval from the United Nations before taking military action? The liberal media can only protect him for a little longer. Eventually, Kerry will have to unambiguously provide the American people with an answer.

“(if Daalder's quoted comments don't suggest he was in over his head when he got involved in campaign politics they don't suggest anything).”

They suggest that Ivo Daalder is someone who puts his wet finger into the air to see which way the wind will blow. This man has humiliated himself and is unworthy of respect.

Dan;
What you post speaks to me louder than anything else about is something I have often pinted at; The ability of the Democrats to shift their supposed 'foundational thining' when the current version puts their political power in any risk....

David Thompson correctly suggests:

"They suggest that Ivo Daalder is someone who puts his wet finger into the air to see which way the wind will blow. This man has humiliated himself and is unworthy of respect."

I don't see him as being substantially different than anyone else on the Democrat side of the playing table this election cycle, do you, really?

Gotta say, I'm in agreement with DT on this issue. Dean and his FP advisors have indeed pulled the Dems leftward this political cycle. It's hard to see how Kerry retakes the center in anything, but especially foreign policy at this point. Good God, if I hear the word Vietnam one more time I'm liable to vomit blood. I daresay anyone with a pulse under the age of 40 would agree.

I think Daalder is an ass and O'Hanlon the closest Dems have to a sage. That said, however, it makes no sense to me that Democrats would be so quick to turn on "Deaniacs" and threaten careers. Why? Isn't this a marketplace of ideas? If the public don't buy your product and your business goes under do we blacklist the salesmen and marketers? Whatever for?

The Republicans are (for all their faults) grown-ups who recognize that there are "little Englanders (little Americanists?)" as well as "neo-imperialists" within their ranks. When one group is in the ascendent, they do not cast out entirely the other, calling them disloyal to party and country. But in the Democratic Party today, leaders like Lieberman are lambasted as crypto-Republicans. Purity of thought and deed are demanded--all others are cast aside. We are a party that eats its own. No wonder we are in the wilderness.

Dan,

Which neoconservatives that supported McCain are now running US Foreign Policy?

The only neo-con McCainite I remember is Bill Kristol and he's not running anything. Did Wolfowitz support McCain?

I recall several articles of how McCain supporters were blacklisted by the Bush crowd and IIRC one of McCain's campaign heads actually moved to the Dems.

ch2, who has no courage to post a vaild e-mail address, nor his real name, has not the intelligence, facts, or decorum to be making the argument that he is making. So he has to go to the old standby of the liberals, the ad hominem argument:

"Suffice it to say: BULLSHIT. I am ashamed of this administration, not of being American. And if you support the Bush crew, I am ashamed of YOU as well.", he essentially states. Yet, he comes up with no evidence as to why what he is saying is true. So why should we believe him?

"I didn't like that he criticized the [Democrats] senators who voted for the eighty-seven billion dollars. We can't get things right in Iraq without the funding."

We won't be able to make things "right" there even with more funding. Iraq is a rat-hole for tax dollars. It is an impending civil war and a continuing disaster. You can throw all the money you want at it...but you ain't going to ever fix Iraq.

If anybody tells you otherwise they are as dizzy as bush.

What I don't understand about David Thomson is his insistence that the Democrats now consider Brad DeLong as "Bush Lite".

David, I know Brad DeLong. I don't consider him Bush Lite. As a matter of fact, I'd put him on the more liberal wing of the Democratic Party on every subject except economics, and there I'd say he's in the center.

And he doesn't like George Bush.

“What I don't understand about David Thomson is his insistence that the Democrats now consider Brad DeLong as "Bush Lite".

David, I know Brad DeLong. I don't consider him Bush Lite. As a matter of fact, I'd put him on the more liberal wing of the Democratic Party on every subject except economics, and there I'd say he's in the center.

And he doesn't like George Bush.”

Andrew J. Lazarus is such a nice guy. He makes me feel like Barry Bonds looking at a fat juicy pitch being pitched over the middle of the plate. It matters not a whit that Brad De Long “doesn't like George Bush.” My comments are restricted entirely to the Berkeley professor’s economic views---and every single remaining Democrat presidential candidate considers a free trader like DeLong to be Bush lite. Who in hell does Lazarus thinks Howard Dean is referring to when he charges some Democrats to be ideologically impure?

Arnold Kling is highlighting a dispute Brad De Long is currently having with Jeff Faux:

http://econlog.econlib.org/archives/000391.html

Yup, Brad De Long is now considered a heretic by the so-called Democrat wing of the Democrat Party---and these folks call the shots. In case Lazarus hasn’t notice, Senator Joseph Lieberman has dropped out of the race.

"Brad De Long is now considered a heretic by the so-called Democrat wing of the Democrat Party---and these folks call the shots."

You have to wonder, where does THIS come from?

I wish right wingers would simply say, hey I think my guy is better instead of just making things up about the other side.

By David's rather bizarre reasoning, Republican protectionists in the Rust Belt are Dean Lite.

Dean's comments about Bush Lite were about so much more than trade. In fact, they weren't about any one vote so much as the roll-over defeatist mentality that permeated all the leadership of the party, right up until Howard Dean started attacking George Bush on a daily basis.

I'd expect to see DeLong high up in the forthcoming Democratic Administration (if he wants to be). Everyone in America who makes less than $10 million a year would trade the Bush economy for the Clinton economy in a heartbeat.

“By David's rather bizarre reasoning, Republican protectionists in the Rust Belt are Dean Lite.”

Gosh darn it, I think you are finally getting it! You are truly an insightful person. The Republican protectionists are indeed Dean Lite regarding this particular issue.

“Everyone in America who makes less than $10 million a year would trade the Bush economy for the Clinton economy in a heartbeat.”

Alas, such an option will not be offered to you this November. The Bill Clinton of 1992 has no chance this time around. Protectionism is the new Democrat dogma. Deal with it.

David, the Bush Administration is more-or-less free trade (that pitch for PA, WV, and OH votes on steel was something of an exception), and the economy isn't very good compared to Clinton's.

Gee, maybe the difference isn't in tariff policy! Maybe the difference is in a commitment to fiscal discipline and balanced budgets! Maybe the difference was a more progressive tax system, instead of reducing the tax burden on the super-rich, even to the extent of reorienting audits towards poorer taxpayers who have much less to collect anyway.

Fraydog stupidly opined:

"ch2, who has no courage to post a vaild e-mail address, nor his real name, has not the intelligence, facts, or decorum to be making the argument that he is making. So he has to go to the old standby of the liberals, the ad hominem argument:"

If I choose to not give out my e-mail that is my choice. As for courage, intelligence, or decorum, I see that you pretend to know me, yet one sentence before you complain about not knowing a bare minimum about me. Ergo: you are full of shit. Damning evidence that my labeling you as an embarrassment to be ashamed of was correct.

Finally, call it the ad hominem defense to the charge by D. Thomson that Democrats were ashamed to be Americans.

Esteemed Mr. "The Kid",

It won't take me 8.5 months to answer.

"Whom do you think that the natives of some village in Sudan, Iran, Syria, Rwanda, or Rwalter would rather welcome: the UN or the 82nd Airborne?"

The natives in "some" villages ? Sounds like a rather vague question.

If I may rephrase, Whom do you think that natives in civil war raked countries would rather welcome: the UN or the 82nd Airborne?

They would probably welcome a faster, stronger force like the 82nd, but there is not a chance in Hell the US would actually do it unless it's a small nation in the Carribeans or in Central America: Iraq was not a civil war intervention and we all know we bailed out of Somalia and are bungling Afghanistan nicely. So they probably know that the UN "is" their best and only hope. (Future developments in Liberia may prove my absolute statement right or wrong, for now, right).

"But when something really important needs to be done, say like preventing Serbs from massacring Moslems in Srebrenica or taking effective means to end malaria, the UN is impotent."

I know how the UN works (thanks for taking the time to explain anyway). You fail to say that UN impotence in civil wars is primarily because of vetoes in the Security Council (which incidentally tries to protect the bigger countries from the tyranny of the tiny irrelevent countries). It's impotence in fighting malaria is budgetary. If member nations contributed to research funds or to cheaper prophylactic methods, there would be more done. Yet even an inefficient UN is more efficient in publicizing ansd eventually treating world-wide epidemics than individual nations.
Thanks to the UN: no more smallpox, polio almost gone, etc. So give it credit where it is due.

"Membership on committees has to be seen as equitable, so no one thinks it funny to have a repressive dictatorship on its human rights committee."

I share your dismay at this situation. Yet I would also say that it can help change a country for the better. For example, I believe engaging China is more effective than to isolating it. The gaze of international publicity can be a good thing.

Listen, The Kid, of course there's politics and politicians in the UN, the same as in any political body (such as in our government in Washington). And you could lob flyballs about the shallowness and calleousness of politicians all day, but it does have it's purpose. The US would not be better served by the abolition or castration of the UN. Even in your cynical descriptions of it I see that you agree as well. Some posters don't get that point. I have issue with them.

Finally,
"Let’s say you’re the regional UN rep for, oh, Africa, and you are warned by your folks on the ground that the Hutus are planning on killing all of the Tutsis. While some of your folks have a pretty good idea of what it might take to prevent mass murders, you talk to a few folks and find that it would just be too much trouble, so you do worse than nothing by ordering your folks out and 800,000 Tutsis die. While that might be a career-killer at GE, GM, and maybe even the EU, it turns out to be a resume-enhancer and wins for you the role of General Secretary at the UN."

I know you are referring to Kofi Annan, but I do not understand what you are saying he did. Did he order UN workers out ? Remember
i) the Secretary General is NOT a president of the world, he is like the Senate President, keeping points of order, etc. though he does have a pulpit to bring issues forth.
ii) the UN does NOT have an army. If the member states refuse to help with troops there is nothing the Secretary can do. So blame us, the Europeans, Russia, etc.

Respectfully,

Finally, Dave Thomson,

"But are they accurate? That’s the real question."

No they are not. You can gleam a fair number of ways in which the UN is useful in the post above.

"Moreover, that is the unavoidable question we must make sure that John Kerry answers. Does he still believe that the United States needs approval from the United Nations before taking military action?"

Ask yourself, what does the approval of the UN mean ? It means we are presenting "winning" arguments to the world. If we couldn't get the approval of nations who have stood with us after 9/11 without economic promises or bribes, then our arguments clearly must have sucked.

Why shouldn't the UN approve of our actions unless they were rash or hypocritical (both of which they were in Iraq) ? We spied on UN member's delegations by tapping their phones, Colin Powell testified citing fabricated evidence, we kept on shifting our reasons for war and completely ignored information from the only people in the intellitgence community to set foot in Iraq in the last 15 years.

Finally, when we were right, the UN DID approve of our actions and has encouraged other nations to HELP us: Afghanistan.

ch2, thank you, for proving my point to a t. Maybe you are a good person to know in the flesh, but you sure haven't shown it here.

Nice try, but that isn't going to cut the mustard, not with me, not with most people, whether they may be conservative or liberal.

And even if David Thompson's charge was indeed ad hominem, was your response not the same? I've seen many left of center Democrats brag (yes, brag!) in coffee houses about being ashamed of America, confusing the Bush administration with the rest of the country, and I'm also brain boggled when one of them mocks anything that could be labed as patriotic or mocks anyone for doing something to show their love for their country...so maybe you should try to make a case for what you believe instead of the name calling. Hell, you might actually make your point.

If you attack Bush policy, that is one thing. The personal attacks are what I don't stand for.