The Dean of Foreign Policy

Articles

Matthew Bastian

The Dean of Foreign Policy
Dec 31, 2003

Truth be told, I received a little flak for my last column, in which I took Dennis Kucinich to task for his stances on the military and health care – some readers felt it was too much of a lay- up to go for such low-hanging fruit. In an effort to redeem myself for the relative puff piece, I’m setting my crosshairs this week on the current frontrunner and darling of liberals everywhere: Governor Howard Dean.

To his credit, Dean has mesmerized both the press and the Democratic base with his irascible nature, unapologetic Bush-bashing and hard-core liberalism. “Maverick,” “firebrand,” and “outsider” are just a few of the accolades that have been thrown at Dean for his feisty, if surprisingly successful, campaign. (John McCain, part deux, anybody?)

Despite all the praise for “straight talk” and other media-driven fawning, I’ve found that very few people seem to know what Dean really stands for – even people who claim to favor him as we head into primary season. No offense, but shouldn’t Dean’s supporters know a little more about their guy beyond the media taglines? (It reminds me of females who like the Yankees simply because Derek Jeter is a “hottie.”)

While they can’t tell you why they think Dean should be president, I can tell you why he shouldn’t: a painful lack of experience in foreign policy.

I can already hear Dean-backers crying foul: George W Bush was once a governor lacking in this area too, right? True, but Dubya was not nearly as abrasive, outspoken, or critical about current foreign policy as Dean. The former also had the intellectual honesty to realize this shortcoming and surround himself with the foreign policy equivalent of the Los Angeles Lakers. Dean has yet to display so much as a hint of the modesty and introspection that leads me to believe he would attempt to do the same.

Dean’s now famous words were that nabbing Saddam Hussein “didn’t make us any safer.” Oddly enough, this comes from the same man who posted the following on his campaign website (deanforamerica.com):

”I agree with President Bush -- he has said that Saddam Hussein is evil. And he is. He is a vicious dictator and a documented deceiver. He has invaded his neighbors, used chemical arms, and failed to account for all the chemical and biological weapons he had before the Gulf War. He has murdered dissidents, and refused to comply with his obligations under U.N. Security Council Resolutions. And he has tried to build a nuclear bomb. Anyone who believes in the importance of limiting the spread of weapons of mass killing, the value of democracy, and the centrality of human rights must agree that Saddam Hussein is a menace. The world would be a better place if he were in a different place other than the seat of power in Baghdad or any other country. “

So, Hussein is a man who is “evil” and a “menace,” yet his capture doesn’t make us safer? Care to explain this apparent contradiction, Mr. Dean? Mr. Dean? (Insert crickets chirping here.)

If we forgive the above quote as “youthful indiscretion,” then Dean is sticking to his guns, albeit perhaps at his political peril. He got so much traction among the party faithful by singing the anti-war tune that he couldn’t change it, even with a clear victory like Saddam’s capture staring him in the face.

As ELO once said, “You made the wine, now you drink the cup.”

Dean fleshes out his would-be policy on Iraq with the usual flummery about the UN, multilateral coalitions, and hand-wringing over world opinion.

In short, Dean’s approach to foreign policy gets high marks in Parisian cafes and at al-Qaeda barbeques.

Bush’s plan in Iraq has not been flawless, but the benefits are irrefutable: Saddam is gone, Libya has volunteered to put an end to its weapons programs, and North Korea – wound up like a top as usual - has agreed to multilateral talks on the nuclear program that Bill Clinton left under their Christmas tree back in 1994. Like it or not, Bush achieved in nine months what the UN couldn’t do in a decade.

Dean’s knee-jerk pessimism towards all this is alarming. If his myopic, anti-Bush message is his strength in the Democratic primaries, it is also his flaw in the general election. “Zealot” is a term that gets thrown around a lot by Bush’s detractors; I’d argue that “zealot” is only one notch down the scale from “firebrand.”

Oh, and for those who don’t follow sports: the Lakers are really good this year. All signs point to that team winning it all in 2004.

I love a good analogy.

------------

About Matthew Bastian: Recovering socialst, part-time drummer, long-suffering Brewers fan, and all-around beach hound, Mr. Bastian lives in central New Jersey. Email Matthew Bastian: mbastian19@hotmail.com

Comment on this column in the forum.
------------