In turn, American foreign affairs, in many ways, benefit from a lack of mainstream media coverage. Understanding international politics often requires more brainpower than understanding domestic politics-- as it involves the knowledge of disparate histories, cultures, languages, and geographies. When foreign policy does become front and center stage in U.S. politics, the attempts to package and parcel debates into bite size bits for common consumption are typically even more asinine than usual. Strokes of genius such as "jealous of our freedom" and "General Betray-us" come to mind.
Every once in a while, however, something legitimately big happens in domestic politics-- such as Sunday's passage of healthcare reform. Like it or not, it is an extraordinary piece of legislation, of a species that is only passed once in a generation. Obama suddenly transforms his image from that of a waffling president to one of a strong, tenacious president, something that will have reverberations in how foreign leaders perceive him.
This is a big event. Yet someone who I respect, David Brooks, inexplicably decides to inflate the complexity of healthcare reform by belittling the Iraq war:
Nobody knows how this [healthcare reform] bill will work out. It is an undertaking exponentially more complex than the Iraq war, for example. [bold is mine]
Mr. Brooks, have you lost your mind? Building democracy in a region that only knows autocrats, with a culture that we don't understand and tongues that we can't comprehend, at the cost of nearly a trillion dollars over 7 years, and indirect costs multiple times that---this is exponentially simpler than changing how we pay our doctors? A startling confession from David Brooks that he, and presumably many others, have not learned much about the difficulties of occupation and nation-building from the trials of the past decade.
It is this blindness to the challenges of using American power to shape the future of the world that allowed the Bush administration to saunter into Iraq and treat geopolitics like a game of chicken. Somehow, the same people who are (rightfully) skeptical of the power of the American government to do what is best for society at home lose all reservations when it comes to U.S. government power abroad. It is high-time that commentators stopped indulging in our national predilection for disregarding the complexity of international affairs.
- Jon
Comments
Such a decisive delineation of "dometic" vs. "international" policy is dangerous and mishandles greater concepts of globalisation and the general reification of global affairs. In other words, what is at once "domestic" instantly becomes "international," no matter how large the geographical or diplomatic divide.
Furthermore, claiming that one requires "more brainpower" belittles the complexity of assimilating exterior influences for the betterment of the domestic space.
Mr. Brooks may be incorrect in his judgment, but he is not incorrect in his rubric. The above quoted statement doesn't balance domestic vs. international policy. What must be realized is the instantaneous blending of the two in both healthcare reform and the Iraqi situation--this is why he compares them. Again, he may be incorrect in his valuation, but his comment should not be construed as an assertion of American domestic affairs over international affairs.
Hey Matt, thanks for your comments. I agree that the line between domestic and international politics is both artificial and blurry. But there is a continuum. In small countries, the line is really almost non existent-- take Israel for example. But in a country of the size and (relative) geographical isolation of the United States, I do think such a delineation is useful. (more tenuous is my statement about "brainpower"-- I may have overstepped there)
Anyways, my inspiration for this post was the frustrating disregard for int'l complexity that has informed talk of Iraq from the start, and informs talk of invading Iran in many circles (see What Not to Read: Bret Stephens).
In domestic politics, political hyperbole is regularly used for political gain, such as talks of death panels or nuclear options (ending filibusters). This discourse is irritating, but relatively harmless. But when you do the same thing in foreign policy, it has much bigger repercussions. There is a reason why Congress can't be trusted with making foreign policy/controlling the military. It would be a train wreck. (this is one of the main reasons why the Articles of Confederation failed)
I enjoyed this rant. Brooks made a stupid comment and it should be recognized as such.
As a side note, I am not convinced that Congress can be trusted to make important domestic decisions. I don't want to even think about the disarray that would ensue if Congress did anything more than sign rubber stamp foreign policy decisions.
