October 25, 2005
Ceding Idealism to the GOP

By Richard Cohen

WASHINGTON -- About six months after the 1989 Tiananmen Square massacre, George H.W. Bush's national security adviser Brent Scowcroft went to Beijing and met with China's ``paramount leader,'' Deng Xiaoping. Scowcroft said he communicated the president's unhappiness over the massacre, to which Deng essentially said, mind your own business. ``And I said, `You're right. It is none of our business,''' Scowcroft tells Jeffrey Goldberg in the current New Yorker. This raises an obvious question: How many have to die before it is our business?

That question is at the heart of the dilemma now facing American foreign policy. Scowcroft is a famous -- and now, after Goldberg, maybe infamous -- realist. Not for him any grand, noble causes. He is parsimonious with American lives and treasure and he famously opposed George W. Bush's intention to go to war in Iraq. He found out this was a different Bush with a different foreign policy. The younger Bush's was infused with moralism.

It's clear now that Bush's foreign policy, at least as it applies to Iraq, has gone awry. With the U.S. closing in on 2,000 military deaths, with no end in sight, with civil war looming, with Iraq becoming a beacon for Islamic terrorists from elsewhere in the Muslim world, with ... well, the list of calamities can go on and on, it's now apparent that Bush should have at least wondered why Scowcroft was so opposed to the war. After all, Scowcroft is no pacifist. He not only favored the 1991 Gulf War, he was instrumental in getting his boss to fight it.

Scowcroft's remarks about his mission to China make him sound cold and unfeeling, which is not the case at all. But his brand of realism is not the stuff of TV speeches from the Oval Office and pronouncements about good and evil. It is a dry, tasteless meal for the soul, no matter what its intellectual or practical virtues, and it sorely lacks the Kennedyesque call to service (``Ask not ...'') or even, to go back some decades, Roosevelt's summons to a generation of Americas who had, he told them, a ``rendezvous with destiny.''

Both JFK and FDR were Democrats, of course, and the party has always been associated with internationalism -- everything from the League of Nations to the United Nations. Somehow, though, that moralism -- that urge to do good abroad -- has drifted over to the GOP. It is Republicans, particularly neocons, who talk the language of moralism in foreign policy and who, weapons of mass destruction aside, wanted to take out Saddam Hussein because he was a beast. It mattered to them that he killed and tortured his own people. It says something about the Democratic left that it cheered Michael Moore's infantile ``Fahrenheit 9/11'' even though the film made no mention of Saddam's depredations, not even his gassing of Kurdish villages. Moore's morality stops at the water's edge.

It is probably no accident that so many Middle East hands supported the war. They had seen enough to be appalled and to think, probably incorrectly, that ridding the region of Saddam would have a beneficial effect. The supposed afterthought about democracy -- the apparent fallback position once WMD proved not to exist -- was in fact the top priority for many neocons. As Paul Wolfowitz admitted to Vanity Fair in 2003, WMD was just one reason to go into Iraq. Democracy and human rights were not only others, but possibly more important.

In 1984, to my consternation, I heard the New Deal theme song ``Happy Days Are Here Again'' played at the Republican National Convention in Dallas. That swipe of political icon -- Ronald Reagan had earlier borrowed FDR's ``rendezvous'' phrase for his famous speech praising Barry Goldwater -- has been followed by a more serious one: the theft of altruism. It is now Republicans, at least neocons, who often speak most forcefully about right and wrong in the world. Just as Scowcroft is doing, it is the Democrats now who often speak the cold language of realism that sometimes seems downright uncaring.

Bush's soggy religiosity clearly should not be the basis of a foreign policy. (In The New Yorker, Goldberg quotes Condi Rice as saying before the war, ``The world is a messy place, and someone has to clean it up.'') But neither can a cold refusal to recognize the role that morality can play. The trick for the Democrats is to strike a balance, to honor their party's tradition of internationalism and appeal to the American desire to whack the bad guys. America -- as it ultimately did in Bosnia -- can still do some good in the world. That's realism, too.

© 2005, Washington Post Writers Group

Richard Cohen

Author Archive
Email Author
Print This Article
Send Article To a Friend

More Commentary

Left-Out Moderates Could Rule - Mort Kondracke
"Us" or "Them" - Thomas Sowell
Evidence Has Turned Against Miers - Jack Kelly

More From The Washington Post

Alan Greenspan: Master of Minimalism - George Will
Fed Chief No Job For an Ideologue - E. J. Dionne
Miers: The Only Exit Strategy - Charles Krauthammer