
There is a fascinating debate going on currently within the foreign policy community of the Democratic Party. The debate centers on the role of the United States in the world and in particular the position of the US as a global hegemon. For many on the left of the party the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan have exposed the fallacy of the United States acting as a global hegemon. The wars have brought to light a deep vein of imperialism, one they’ve always known existed and which they’ve been warning everyone else about since the Vietnam War.
My positions on foreign policy are more to the right of the party but I can’t say the arguments raised by those on the left are without merit - because they aren’t. Anyone who has taken a basic International Political Economy course is aware of Hegemonic Stability Theory, a theory that at this point in our history seems to have been entirely discredited by the incompetence of the Bush administration.
Yet those on the left who claim the more moderate and conservative members of the foreign policy establishment are really neocons who secretly lust for American global domination are really engaging in baseless ad-hominem attacks. I’m a proponent of a foreign policy based on Grotian internationalist principles, a multilateralist foreign policy, a foreign policy 180 degrees from the one we have now. Because I seek the maximization of the diplomatic power of my country doesn’t mean I’m a secret believer in using military force to maintain the hegemonic position of the United States in the world - actually quite the opposite.
These debates are fascinating and in the end will make for a stronger, better, more united Democratic Party. That is in the interests of every Democratic in the field of foreign policy no matter whether they consider themselves left, right or center.