Non-interventionist Internationalism: Toward a Left Foreign Policy

I have recently read a number of pieces in left-of-center publications lamenting the lack of a coherent Left foreign policy, the most recent being Ed Burmila's "Naughty by NATO" in the Sept/Oct issue of The Baffler. These articles carry a couple of common themes. For starters, the authors argue that the Left does not spend enough time focusing on foreign policy, preferring the territory of domestic policy instead. This leads to a situation in which the Left only evaluates foreign policy on a case-by-case basis, without any clear overarching priorities or goals. Furthermore, to the extent that the Left does have a foreign policy, it is based simply on opposing Washington's neoliberal/neoconservative consensus of interventionism, without articulating any positive vision of how the US should engage with the world beyond refraining from the use of military force.

I generally agree with these critiques. As someone whose own political radicalization began with an exploration of the horrors of US foreign policy, I find myself disappointed that today's Left does not spend enough time talking about it beyond mere lip service. That being said, there have been some on the Left who have done a good job of illuminating what the questions at hand are. The Nation, for instance, has done an excellent job of covering both the Trump administration's foreign policy misdeeds, as well as the international movements promoting peace and global solidarity. Yet such a focus has been generally lacking elsewhere, especially in the coverage of the presidential election. The Democratic primary has mostly been centered on domestic policy issues like health care; even discussion around climate change and immigration - issues inherently international in nature - have mostly been referred to only in terms of the domestic response. The lack of attention to the threat of nuclear annihilation is also concerning.

Especially in the face of a Trump presidency, and the clear desire of the foreign policy establishment to wrest back control, the need for a real Left foreign policy is urgent. This post is my attempt to contribute to this conversation - in however small a way - by putting into writing for the first time the vision for such a foreign policy that I have had in my mind for a while. I refer to such an approach as "non-interventionist internationalism".

As its name suggests, non-interventionist internationalism effectively consists of two parts. The first part, non-interventionism, is what might be considered more familiar territory for Leftists: the reduction of the use of US force around the world. This should be thought of in terms more broadly than simply disengaging from specific conflicts or countries. What's ultimately needed is the ending of all US overseas operations, the withdrawal of all US military and intelligence personnel from abroad, and the closing of all US overseas bases. The Left should call on the US to renounce all unilateral use of force abroad, and to renounce the right to destabilize and overthrow foreign governments. The Left also needs to call for the end to overseas arms sales, foreign military aid, and the training of foreign security forces.

While such policies would reverse the harm the US is currently doing abroad, by themselves they do not address how the US should engage with the rest of the world. This is where the principle of internationalism comes in. Internationalism is not something often discussed on the Left, but to my mind is absolutely foundational to what any Left foreign policy should look like. The central aspect of internationalism is engagement with the existing framework of international organizations and treaties set up in the aftermath of World War II. Under such an approach, the UN would be the key avenue for the US to pursue its foreign policy.  For instance, any US forces that would be sent overseas would do so only as part of UN peacekeeping missions. No more would the US act unilaterally, or under the guise of "multilateral" organizations like NATO. Of course, in order for such a policy to be truly viable, the UN itself would need to be reformed, starting with abolishing the veto power of the permanent security council members.

International law is also crucial to such an approach. While there is a large body of existing international law, much of it is toothless, as the US - as the most powerful nation in the world - either refuses to abide by it or does so only as it suits its interests. The Left should focus on getting the US to sign onto and ratify treaties it is not yet a party to, and then subject itself to the same level of accountability as the rest of the world. The idea is to build both the UN and international law into credible avenues for advancing the goals of the Left on the international stage: mitigating the effects of climate change; abolishing nuclear weapons; finding diplomatic solutions to ongoing conflicts; preserving the sovereignty of indigenous populations; promoting the rights of women; and so on and so forth.

The UN is not the only international venue by which a Left foreign policy should be pursued. For instance, the US is a major power in regards to the World Bank, the IMF, and the WTO. The Left should focus on transforming these institutions away from promoting neoliberalism, and toward reducing global income and wealth inequality. Similarly, the Left needs to focus less on nationalistic rhetoric around international trade agreements, and more on establishing a global fair trade regime that works for the benefit of working people and not multinational corporations.

The Left should also take a greater look at how "domestic" policy priorities, like immigration, are actually very much tied to US foreign policy as well. American interventionism, the American-led global War on Drugs, and the American promotion of neoliberal policies have all played key roles in driving people to seek refuge and asylum in the US. The Left should pursue policies that both reduce these harms and repair the damage done. An example of one such policy could be something akin to the "Marshall Plan for Central America" proposed by Julian Castro. Another is open borders, which the mainstream Left has been reluctant to call for so far, but which should be looked at as a form of reparations for the harm the US has done around the world.

Overall, the domestic implications of such a foreign policy would be enormous. The cost savings associated with reducing (and ultimately abolishing) much of America's armed forces and intelligence services could be put back into a "peace dividend", in the form of domestic spending priorities like health care, education, and green infrastructure. In theory, the US would no longer have a standing army at all, with only a transformed National Guard and Coast Guard remaining for the purpose of defense. The curbs to executive power that this would entail means Congress could finally reassert its authority over foreign policy, while simultaneously being subject to the long-ignored requirements of international law - which would have major implications for the well-being of the domestic population.

What I have laid out here is simply a loose framework for what a Left foreign policy should look like, the granular specifics of which I do not have the capacity to delve into at this point. My intention here, again, is simply to give an idea of what the Left should start to think about and focus on more in regards to foreign policy. This is not the end of a conversation, only the beginning of one.

Read More

A Well-Regulated Militia: Perspectives on the Second Amendment

I have recently taken the time to read two fascinating books on the history of the Second Amendment: Roxanne Dunbar-Ortiz's Loaded: A Disarming History of the Second Amendment, published in 2018, and Michael Waldman's The Second Amendment: A Biography, published in 2014. Both authors argue that the United States has a long-standing "gun culture", with the right to gun ownership taken for granted down through the generations, particularly among white men. They differ, however, in how this gun culture affected the drafting of the Second Amendment. Waldman argues that the amendment was created simply to ensure that the state militias could continue to be armed without interference, reflecting fears that a powerful standing army would emerge following the enactment of the Constitution. Dunbar-Ortiz, going a step-further, argues that these militias themselves were a reflection of America's then-nascent gun culture, one already deeply rooted in racism and settler-colonialism. Even if her interpretation of the historical record is not as precisely argued as Waldman's, it is still highly valuable due to her narrative framing in the context of America's long-standing white supremacy, particularly regarding Indigenous peoples and African-Americans.

The two authors take separate approaches to lay out their arguments. Dunbar-Ortiz emphasizes the social and cultural history of gun ownership and violence in the context of the Second Amendment, whereas Waldman focuses on the legal and judicial history of the Second Amendment itself. Despite these differences, and despite the differing theses put forward, I believe their arguments are wholly compatible and can be coherently interwoven. As Waldman explains, the Second Amendment protected the individual right to a gun to fulfill the duty to serve in a militia. Dunbar-Ortiz encourages the reader to think more expansively about what the purpose of the militia actually was. Beyond just serving as a military force designed to prevent the rise of tyranny - whether from within or without - the militia was also, perhaps primarily so, used to conquer the Native nations of the continent (often through ranger units) and preserve the institution of slavery (through slave patrols). Dunbar-Ortiz traces this history throughout her book, while Waldman's book alludes to it as well, though never focuses on it.

Dunbar-Ortiz, both through Loaded and her previous work An Indigenous People's History of the United States, has helped to reframe my views on US history in at least two major ways. First, she argues that the United States is not just an ethnically-based settler-colonial project, but one that is based on the idea of the "covenant", with Americans viewing themselves as God's chosen people. She compares the US to apartheid South Africa and Israel; all three nations have promoted this covenant ideology, with some version of ethnic "exceptionalism" being core to their national identity. The US version has taken on many names and faces over the years, from being "a shining city on a hill" and having a "Manifest Destiny" to being "leader of the Free World" and mankind's one "indispensable nation". Of course, such mythology has almost always been far removed from reality, and has usually been used to advance the causes of militarism, imperialism, and white supremacy.

Secondly, Dunbar-Ortiz views the early development of the United States through the lens of its impacts on Native Americans. She argues that the genocidal tactics employed by colonial militias formed the basis for the counterinsurgent and anti-guerrilla strategies that have proliferated through to the present day, used by the US military from the Philippines to Vietnam to Iraq and beyond. She frames conflicts such as the American Revolution and the War of 1812 as being driven by a desire by settlers to conquer Native lands, and that they were as much Indian Wars as conflicts against British imperial power. In doing so, she reminds the reader that it was not just the American West but also eastern North America that was conquered by European-Americans, a fact often conveniently glossed-over in the mainstream narrative of US history.

It is worth noting that, in telling their stories of the modern developments surrounding gun violence and the Second Amendment, both Waldman and Dunbar-Ortiz tangentially trace the rise of the Right over the past few decades. Waldman focuses on the institutional New Right, including the NRA, the US Chamber of Commerce, and the Federalist Society, as envisioned by future Supreme Court justice Lewis Powell in the early 1970s. Dunbar-Ortiz, meanwhile, traces the rise of the "grassroots" Right, particularly white nationalist militias, the Tea Party, and the so-called "alt-right". In the face of a weakened institutional Left after the Sixties, these forces combined to propel Ronald Reagan to the White House in the 1980 election, and later Donald Trump in 2016. Both authors implicitly argue that a stronger institutional Left is necessary not just to counter the power of the NRA and the gun lobby, but also the broader Right as a whole. This is a lesson that should certainly be taken to heart given the present political climate.

Read More

On Gun Control, Disarmament, and Demilitarization

There has been a renewed call for gun control legislation by liberals in the wake of the recent school shooting in Parkland, Florida, just one of many daily acts of gun violence that take place in the United States. Given the size and scope of the problem, this response is reasonable. However, I am concerned that the push for such policies misses the broader problems presented to American society, and may not serve as the silver bullet, so to speak, that liberals believe them to be.

The United States is the most heavily armed and militarized country in the history of humanity. However, when liberals call for gun control, they are only referring to reducing and/or eliminating the possession of guns by the civilian population. While doing so is certainly a worthy goal, it is woefully incomplete. In my opinion, the following steps should also be taken to demilitarize and disarm the United States: elimination of the US's stockpile of nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons; banning of arms exports to foreign countries and non-state actors; withdrawal of US special operations and other armed forces stationed abroad; closure of US military bases in foreign countries; demilitarization of US law enforcement; and disarming of US police forces. These policy changes would go a long way toward reducing the (usually ignored) systemic violence perpetrated by the US government against populations both foreign and domestic.

Of course, such policies would not necessarily address the culture of violence that emanates through American society. Much of this culture is based on the masculine ideology that I have referred to before, which may be more pervasive and deep-rooted in the United States than in any other nation. (There is no more perfect example of this than the militarism and violence associated with American football - which has been dubbed the "national religion" of the United States.) Confronting this masculine ideology head-on with a broad-based feminist movement is thus also a major prerequisite toward reducing gun violence and militarism in the US.

In addition to these measures, attention must be paid to other factors that contribute to the demand for and use of guns in the US. As Johann Hari points out, one of the most significant is the War on Drugs - or, perhaps more accurately, the "War for Drugs" - the fight among criminals for control of the drug trade. This "drug-related violence" - acts done to establish, protect, and defend drug territory in an illegal market - could effectively be eliminated with the legalization of narcotics. Some experts have estimated that ending drug prohibition could reduce the murder rate by as much as 75%.

There has also been much discussion around the relationship between mental illness and gun violence. For instance, liberals have derided President Trump's decision last year to repeal a rule blocking mentally ill people from buying guns. While such policies certainly have merit, there must be caution regarding potential unintended consequences. I and others noted at the time that such a policy may actually discourage those with mental illness from seeking counseling and treatment, for fear that they may lose access to their guns - potentially exacerbating the problem. It is important to work to destigmatize mental illness and ensure access to treatment and care for all those who do have mental and emotional health issues.

As long as we do continue to have such a prolific quantity of guns in American society, it is also important to educate the public about proper use, handling, and storage of said firearms, particularly among youth. Liberals have generally ignored or rejected such an approach, on grounds that sound similar to the conservative arguments for "abstinence-only" education and "Just Say No" drug policy. Encouraging ignorance does nothing to address the problem of accidental shootings that seem increasingly common in American society any more than it did for teenage pregnancies or drug overdoses.

This is certainly not a complete assessment of the causes of gun violence and issues related to gun control policy in the US. I have not discussed, for instance, the role of poverty in gun violence, the history of the racial politics of gun control, or the need to build trust within communities as a potential solution. However, I hope I have laid out a way of looking at gun violence and gun control that moves beyond the traditional liberal-conservative dichotomy and encourages a deeper, reality-based conversation

Read More

The Lie of American Exceptionalism

In the aftermath of Charlottesville, a discussion seems to have arisen about the US's white supremacist roots. Reflecting on this reality raises an even broader and very troubling question: what exactly is to be celebrated about the United States?

Andrew Jackson, Donald Trump's favorite president, battles the

Seminoles (a mix of Native Americans and escaped slaves), as

he conquers Florida for the United States.

As a political project, the US may well have been created as a democracy, but using the genuine Athenian sense of the demos. The demos did not refer to "the people", as many mistakenly believe, but rather to those considered citizens of the Athenian polity, thus excluding slaves, freed slaves, women, and resident immigrants. US democracy was similarly designed to exclude these groups, as well as indigenous people who lived on the land the US claimed. The gradual integration of these groups into the political process was not a part of some "arc of progress" envisioned by the so-called "Founding Fathers". Instead, it has run directly counter to their conception of the US project, in which the ruling majority, the demos, was intended to be land-owning white men.

Those who state that, despite its limitations, the US established the most democratic government ever conceived, do so only by looking through a purely Eurocentric lens. It would not be hard to argue that the Native American societies the US sought to destroy were actually far more democratic and egalitarian, with far greater decentralization and distribution of power and far less reliance on systems of hierarchy based on race, gender, or class. Even the Bill of Rights, perhaps the most genuinely laudable aspect of American democracy, was only made necessary due to the autocratic nature of European monarchy; Native societies had no need for such codified protection of civil liberties, as their governments rarely (if ever) produced such despotism in the first place.

The picture becomes even darker once we look at the United States as an economic project. The US's agricultural economy was developed only through expropriation of Native land and the exploitation of black slaves. The transition to an industrial economy was similarly based on resources expropriated from the US's colonized territories - including the American West - and the exploitation of immigrant labor. The whole capitalist economic system has been upheld through the use of state violence, particularly military invasion and occupation. The gist of US foreign policy has always been the establishment of a hegemonic empire - first continental, then hemispheric, and now global - to promote its commercial interests.

The aspects of US history that tend to be viewed as marks of "progress" - emancipation and the abolition of slavery, the granting of women's suffrage, desegregation and the re-enfranchisement of African-Americans, etc - were primarily the elimination of oppressive systems of predominantly European origin. The rest of the "progress" chronicled in US history - wealth production and technological advancement, with credit given to the capitalist system - has actually resulted in dehumanization, social and economic dislocation, and environmental degradation. Progress indeed.

In short, it strikes me that contrary to the view of "American Exceptionalism", of the United States being the "indispensable nation", the Americas, and frankly the rest of the world, would be much better off had it not been for European colonization, and had the United States never been founded.

Read More

Some Comments on the Election Results

Man, what a disaster. Turnout was the story, hands down. In New York, less than a third of registered voters actually voted. The reason may be quite simple: the man at the top of the Democratic ticket, Andrew Cuomo. He drew no enthusiasm from his base, so they didn't bother to show up. Cuomo's victory was underwhelming, to put it mildly. In the Capital District, for example, he carried only one county (Albany) and even then by only a 44-42 margin. Even more stunning is that at the same time Tom DiNapoli won the county by over 40 points. This was clearly a rebuke of Mr. Cuomo, his policies, and his methods (see: Moreland, LIPA, fracking study).

Cuomo's weak performance likely hurt Democrats running in congressional races down ballot. Lee Zeldin defeated incumbent Rep. Tim Bishop by almost 10 in the 1st district. Michael Grimm (despite indictment on 20 federal counts) easily beat his weak opponent in the 11th. Dan Maffei lost reelection in the 24th, a district that handily went for Obama in 2012. Most stunningly, Louise Slaughter is (as of this moment) barely holding on in the 25th, a district every commentator regarded as "Safe D".

But the real loser undoubtedly was the Working Families Party. For the most part, they got what they had coming to them. They nominated Cuomo in May (I was there). He did nothing but screw them over afterward. Now, they're relegated to row E for the next four years (their vote undermined in part by Cuomo's "Women's Equality" line). Even worse, the state senate fell into Republican hands outright. Democratic control of the senate was the whole point of endorsing Cuomo; he didn't deliver. The WFP's complaining after the fact seems awfully weak, considering that they knew (not should have known, but knew) that this was likely to happen. In other words. they dug their own grave

The real winner (well, besides the Republicans, obviously) was the Green Party. Howie Hawkins drew nearly 5% of the vote, many times over what he got in 2010. They drew double digits in several upstate counties (Tompkins - 16%, Albany - 13%, Columbia/Ulster - 11%, Otsego/Rensselaer 10%). The party will now occupy row C on the ballot. This despite limited campaign cash, little media attention, and only one debate. Moreover, Matt Funicello captured 11% in the 21st congressional district.

Nationally, it was a disastrous evening for Dems. They lost the Senate, not all that surprising but ugly nonetheless. Mark Pryor in Arkansas did worse than Brad Hutto in South Carolina. Mitch McConnell outperformed his 2008 marks. David Perdue avoided a runoff and won outright. Dems lost in Colorado, Iowa, and (most disappointingly) North Carolina. Virginia proved to be a nail-biter, and still isn't quite over. They're losing in Alaska, and likely to lose the runoff in Louisiana. Even Pat Roberts managed to win reelection by double-digits. A bloodbath most definitely.

The governors races, however, are what really proved shocking. It was thought that Democrats might pick up a seat or two; instead, they lost seats on home turf. Only dead-man-walking Tom Corbett (and perhaps Sean Parnell, to an independent) went down for the Reps. Meanwhile, Democrats lost not only Arkansas (a tough race to begin with) and Illinois (thanks to the extremely unpopular Pat Quinn), but also Maryland and Massachusetts, two open seat races in blue states. They lost to Tea Party wavers in Maine, Florida, Ohio, Michigan, and Wisconsin, all states that twice went for Obama. Sam Brownback, who has completely wrecked the economy of Kansas, somehow won reelection despite trailing in almost every poll. Once promising targets like South Carolina and Georgia (where Nathan Deal avoided a runoff) proved to be duds. Even newly minted Texas Democratic superstar Wendy Davis underperformed her counterpart from Oklahoma! Even the races they won were unimpressive. Democratic candidates won only pluralities in Rhode Island, Oregon, and Vermont (where the legislature will have to vote to officially elect soon-to-be-former DGA-chair Peter Shumlin).The only real bright spots were that Democrats held on in Colorado and Connecticut, two very tough races indeed.

This was truly a "tornado" election. Republicans will almost certainly hold their largest House majority since the Herbert Hoover administration. As for state legislatures, Democrats will control their fewest since 1860 (!). Meanwhile, Republicans will likely set a record for the most seats they have ever held, as they picked up the lower chambers in WV, NV, MN, and NM (and perhaps CO and WA), along with the upper chambers of NV, NY, ME, CO, and WA (and tied WV). Dems also lost other crucial local and statewide races (perhaps none more important than the Secretary of State of Ohio, a key 2016 battleground).

The next few years will be very red (tea?) flavored indeed.

Read More

Dystopia in the the Present Tense

A state of perpetual warfare. Armed forces occupying foreign territory for over seventy years. Active combat ongoing for more than thirteen.

An ubiquitous surveillance state. Continuous monitoring of communications using advanced technology. Exposers of the truth persistently pursued and prosecuted.

A police state. Local units equipped with military hardware. Prisons overwhelmed with disproptionately minority populations. Inmates regularly murdered, with applause from the public.

An oligarchic state. Corporate elites manipulate "elected" government officials for their own profit. Massive inequality in the distribution of wealth.

An impoverished state. Millions of citizens struggling to scrape by from day to day. Crime and drug use rampant in major metropolitan areas.

A fundamentalist state. Fanatical religious doctrine permeates through systems of healthcare and education.

An anti-intellectual state. Scientific findings and medical breakthroughs routinely rejected by vast swaths of society.

A propaganda state. Mass media breathessly conveys "news" passed down from the elite masters, filling the remainder of their programming with "infotainment".

A rapidly degrading state. Prolonged pollution of the atmosphere by corporate elites produces climate threat to future existence of human race.

This is not a scene from a George Orwell novel. This is a description of the United States in 2014.

Read More

On the Origins of the Cold War

When examining the causes behind the onset of the Cold War, several themes become evident in terms of the considerations of the two major parties of the conflict, the United States and the Soviet Union. The United States was increasingly enamored with anti-Communist sentiments, a fact particularly evident when looking at the campaigns of Senator Joseph McCarthy and his counterparts on the House Un-American Activities Committee. However, such sentiments were not new for the United States. Fear of Communism and socialism in general dated back decades to the early 20th century. These fears initially peaked with the response to the Bolshevik takeover in Russia following the First World War. The United States, along with other Western powers, attempted to intervene militarily in the conflict by supporting the anti-Bolshevik “White Russians”. This foreign intervention was accompanied by a campaign on the homefront orchestrated by Attorney General A. Mitchell Palmer. The McCarthy of his day, Palmer launched his infamous “Palmer Raids”, targeting actual and suspected Communists and anarchists. Anti-Communist crusades of this time were epitomized by the imprisonment of noted American socialist leader Eugene V. Debs during the First World War, as well as the ideologically charged Sacco & Vanzetti trial.

Read More