I am writing an article today, so regrettably don’t have time to post much. However, I have been inundated with emails and bits of advice and encouragement about something I noted in one of my comments regarding building a credible and compelling alternative to neoconservative foreign policy thinking.
One of my readers wrote —
Dear Steve:
I wanted to see the good v. evil debate continue, but somehow everybody went in another direction. But I loved this idea of yours, and have highlighted in brackets the part I think is most important.
I hope it isn’t just limited to foreign policy as I think the same thing applies to progressives and domestic policy as well, both on a broader scale and in my personal experience.
I’m very supportive of this effort —
Anonymous Lady
For now, I am interested in getting the foreign policy part of this initiated and don’t want to tackle all issues until we have developed a road map for tackling one. Josh Marshall seems to be doing a great job saving social security — so I’d like to focus for the time being on national security and foreign policy challenges. And then broaden as the strategy succeeds (or fails?).
I have my own thoughts on how to develop a network of talented people and alternative foreign policy thought — but I am really interested in learning what I can from those of you reading this. Some of the challenges involve sorting through the great diversity of thinking in centrist and progressive circles on foreign policy. Peter Beinart wants the Dems to be tough, and the DLC loves his stuff.
Others think that a constructive, enlightened policy can be successfully pursued by Democrats without chasing a “Zell Miller Light” strategy.
By the way, I’m much more interested in developing a foreign policy strategy that either party might adopt as its own — not just the Democrats as many of my moderate Republican friends support this initiative. But, the Democratic Party seems to me more hijackable at the moment — though I think that Republican foreign policy circles need to have a civil war, and I have an active hand in that.
Grover Norquist started his weekly meetings pretty small and broadened them — and didn’t insist on uniformity of views among conservatives. What implications are there for a Democratic coordination circle that tried the same?
The Project for the New American Century was very public with its plans, its members and intentions. Should this process we are trying to launch be as public?
There are dozens of other questions that could be sorted through — and many of you know them better than I.
What would be very useful is for people to take a bit of time and think about this and share whatever constructive thoughts on strategy, design, focus, themes, diversity of perspective, etc. I will only read those suggestions that are written in a constructive manner, and will even read those who disagree with the policy direction I am suggesting if written in a way that is respectful and responsible.
If you don’t want to post your comments publicly, my private email is steve@steveclemons.com.
Look forward to hearing from you today.
Now, I’m back to work. . .
— Steve Clemons
