Could Bernie Save the Liberal Order?
Bernie Sanders hesitated to challenge former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton directly on foreign policy during the Democratic primaries, with the notable exception of pushing her to forswear support for the Trans-Pacific Partnership free trade deal. But Sanders has foreign policy views, and on Thursday, September 21, at the Missouri college where Winston Churchill gave his famous “Iron Curtain” speech, the de facto leader of the American left endorsed U.S. power and values-based leadership as a force for good in the world — and refuted the isolationist temptation — in bold terms:
“Today I say to Mr. Putin: we will not allow you to undermine American democracy or democracies around the world. In fact, our goal is to not only strengthen American democracy, but to work in solidarity with supporters of democracy around the globe, including in Russia. In the struggle of democracy versus authoritarianism, we intend to win.
When we talk about foreign policy it is clear that there are some who believe the United States would be best served by withdrawing from the global community.
I disagree.
As the wealthiest and most powerful nation on earth, we have got to help lead the struggle to defend and expand a rules-based international order, in which law, not might, makes right.”
In essence, Sanders endorsed U.S. leadership when Washington isn’t doing what Barack Obama dubbed “stupid s***.” However, Sanders sees plenty of “stupid s***” in the U.S. foreign policy record. As a critique of mistakes and failures with harmful unintended consequences, from the overthrow of Iranian Prime Minister Mohammed Mossadegh in 1953 to the Iraq War to the present U.S. support for Saudi Arabia’s war in Yemen — and a statement of the ideals America should fight for, Sanders’ remarks were detailed and sharp.
As a statement of the ideals America should fight for, Sanders’ remarks were detailed and sharp
Sanders’ list of positive examples of U.S. foreign policy was shorter. He cheered the creation of the United Nations, the 70-year-old Marshall Plan (that perennial favorite), the Paris agreement on climate change, and most relevantly, the Obama administration’s Iran diplomacy. In the time frame between the 1940s and the Obama administration, Bernie heralded the sister city program which he himself set up as mayor of Burlington with the Soviet city of Yaroslavl in the 1980s. His “bottom line” is that:
“the United States must seek partnerships not just between governments, but between peoples… Every person on this planet shares a common humanity… Our job is to build on that common humanity and do everything that we can to oppose all of the forces, whether unaccountable government power or unaccountable corporate power, who try to divide us up and set us against each other.”
Sanders noted that walking away from the Iran deal would “irreparably harm America’s ability to negotiate future nonproliferation agreements,” making the North Korea problem more difficult. Sanders is hardly the only one to make this point, but he is the only member of Congress from the left who voted against the Iran/Russia sanctions this summer due to his concern about stresses on the JCPOA and an imbalanced U.S. approach to the Middle East and particularly the Saudi-Iranian cold war. On North Korea, he stressed coming to consensus with China and others, trying to negotiate with Pyongyang, and tightening sanctions if necessary.
Sanders’ basic foreign policy doctrine as explained here amounts to:
- being a better example for the world by “revitalizing American democracy” in “the interests of the majority of our people”, reforming policing and the criminal justice system, and unequivocally condemning white supremacy.
- using force as a measure of last resort.
- engaging in “dialogue and debate,” between peoples as well as among diplomats.
- fighting global economic inequality and climate change including via development aid.
It is a wise list of principles, but light on the specifics on how a President Sanders might deal with tough cases.
Sanders failed to grapple with some of the trade-offs inherent in pursuing a values-based foreign policy.
For example, Sanders failed to grapple with some of the trade-offs inherent in pursuing a values-based foreign policy, a highly relevant topic given that Trump and Secretary of State Rex Tillerson show little interest in doing so. Putin attacked American democracy because U.S. promotion of democratic enlargement undermines the sovereignty of brittle authoritarian states, as well as the influence of powers like Russia and China in their neighborhood. In this context, Sanders’ views on U.S. policy towards Ukraine and Central and Eastern Europe over the past 20 years — mistakes made, tough calls gotten right — would be helpful to know. And what, if anything, should Washington have done differently in responding to the Arab Spring revolutions and reactions in Egypt, Libya, and Syria? These are the types of morally complex challenges that a president faces.
The 76-year-old Vermont senator is now the closest thing the Democrats have to a leader and frontrunner for a wide-open 2020 race, despite a difficult relationship with the Party and the majority of its voters. This speech was a step forward for both Senator Sanders and the Democrats’ post-Obama foreign policy debate.
Obama ran a pragmatic, principled, and progressive foreign policy, but plenty of the results were unsatisfactory and the world in a different place with Trump in office and other developments. A Sanders foreign policy would be left of Obama’s on trade, but might not be all that different in its limited willingness to use force — Sanders supported interventions in Kosovo and Afghanistan, for instance, while Obama’s dovish instincts prevailed when it mattered most. Senator Chris Murphy of Connecticut, among others, has been vocal about creating a new “progressive foreign policy,” but the Democrats’ debate has progressed at a fairly low volume amidst the sound and fury of the Trump presidency. Greater engagement in that debate by the Senator from Vermont could help turn up the volume. Sanders’ rivals, supporters, and the media alike should keep pushing him on the details.
Out of Order is a place for discussion. If you have thoughts and comments, please share them below. If you take the time to write, we’ll take the time to read, and we’ll probably respond too. Please also hit recommend if you found this analysis useful. For more on the future of the liberal international order, subscribe to Out of Order.
