brunobaby

May's Washington Monthly has a great feature by seven columnists who've spent a lot of time dealing with foreign policy: "Middle East Democracy: Who gets the credit? What are the lessons?"

Here's a sample, by Joe Biden:

The president's very strength—the absolutism of his rhetoric—creates a very mixed message when it runs into the reality of our short-term security interests. It would help if the president acknowledged and explained that tension to the American people and others around the world. Promoting democracy is tough sledding. We must go beyond rhetorical support and the passion of a single speech. It's one thing to topple a tyrant; it's another to put something better in his place.

Great idea, but I don't know how this president would accomplish this, speech-wise. He's not exactly the great communicator. For him to bring the kind of nuance that's necessary without sounding wishy-washy would be like an elephant walking on a tightrope. But I hope the ideas expressed in these articles would be good talking points for a stronger foreign policy by the Democrats, because:

when I say “liberalism” in that context, I mean, really, the Democratic Party, because liberal intellectuals can yap about democracy until doomsday, but it won't matter until elected Democrats take up the topic with conviction.

"Yap." I love it.

The Washington Monthly is getting to be, like, totally my favorite political magazine, because they have noooo-ance. If you asked the Weekly Standard "who gets the credit," they'd say, "Bush! All Bush, all the time! It's Bush, you Commie!" And if you asked the Nation, they'd suck on a lemon and say, "America doesn't deserve any of the credit because we're a big fat imperialist hegemony." But when you break stuff down, find out facts and think about what's true, you can get to what works.