Breaching conventions in statesmanship

Winston Churchill once said, " When I am abroad, I always make it a rule never to criticize or attack the government of my own country. I make up for lost time when I come home. "

An amusing sentiment but at the same time a serious one, and it used to govern the behavior of statesmen overseas, Americans included.  No longer. This past October Bill Clinton — on a visit to London promoting his recent book "Giving" — sat down with BBC Radio host John Humphreys for an interview and, after disposing of book chat in a few minutes, breezily proceeded to harshly criticize President Bush and recent American policy in Iraq, as well as our positions on Kyoto, the Anti-Ballistic Missile treaty and the International Criminal Court.

[More]The old rules no longer apply, having in large measure been overborne by Democrats who feel no compunction about violating them because of what they view as the mean-spirited, selfish nature of contemporary conservatism; not simply that it’s wrong but that it’s evil, which allows them to defy what had heretofore been important conventions in managing foreign policy, not to mention simple decency.

Witness the spectacle of Nancy Pelosi visiting Syrian Dictator, Bashar Assad and making irresponsible pronouncements on policy while at the same time giving legitimacy to a nasty dictator involved in killing our troops in Iraq, undermining the relatively democratic government of Lebanon and continuing support for terrorists.

And then there’s Harry Reid, joined by a number of his colleagues, denigrating our war effort.  Reid believed that the War in Iraq was lost a few years ago.  Fine, but in an action that would have shocked previous generations of American statesmen, he went so far as to publicly and emphatically say so, giving what amounts to aid and comfort to our enemies.  

But the real political sin has been the effort by a majority of Democrats in both Houses of Congress to attempt to restrict funding for the War or otherwise impede its prosecution and stultify the President’s constitutionally-mandated responsibility as Commander-in-Chief and master of American foreign policy.

At the same time, a number of Democratic politicians have felt free to either freely lie about or obscure their record of support for the War or their beliefs about WMD or about the necessity of removing Saddam Hussein.

To return to former President Clinton for a moment, he recently stated that he was opposed to the Iraq War from its beginning.  A Google search reveals no statements to that effect before the War; not even a hint of his claimed opposition.  And, indeed, it would have been widely reported at the time given his status as a former president and his wife’s vote to authorize President Bush to take military action against Saddam.

And throughout, scarcely a peep from the mainstream press about how the Democrats have debased our politics and simple common decency, about their dishonesty or about the threat this kind of   behavior presents to pursuing crucial foreign policy goals confirmed by repeated elections.  If the Democrats do it, ipso facto, it’s fine.

The Democrats have never reconciled themselves to President Reagan’s popularity or their loss of Congressional majorities, particularly in the House of Representatives, which they had held since the beginning of Eisenhower’s Administration.  As long as a figure like Bob Michel was Minority Leader and the Republicans were tame, malleable creatures — content with a little pork and to accept dhimmitude under the Democrats — the Majority party had no problem with them.  

But with the loss of power in the House in 1994 when New Gingrich took over from the soft, fuzzy Republicans of old and sharpened differences with the Democrats, the former seeming hereditary rulers have declared war on the Republicans and have used every means at their disposal, fair or foul, to regain power, beginning with delegitimizing their opponents and extending to dishonesty, obstructionism and unprecedented parliamentary and political maneuvers.

Of course, the Republicans are not entirely without blame, and the Democrats’ antics have been part and parcel of a more general "coarsening of the culture" as the expression goes.  But the sense of entitlement and righteousness that seems intrinsic to contemporary liberalism has been endorsed by the press and allows Democrats to play outside the rules.  After all, their opponents are evil, not simply wrong.

It’s a scandal, unprecedented in our history, where it used to be said that partisan differences over foreign policy stop at the water’s edge.  No longer.

Claiming that a war is lost or foreign policy freelancing only encourages our enemies to hold on until there is a change of Administration or the country is paralyzed by dissension.  Denigrating the United States from a foreign land adds nothing to the domestic debate, and it only serves to demean us in the eyes of those without familiarity with some of the nuances of American policy and politics. Refusing to fund a lawful war is not only undemocratic, but it undermines our military and compromises the President’s authority.

Traditional rules, as frustrating and imperfect as they may have been, as inscrutable as they may have appeared, grew up organically over many years and more often than not have a solid, logical pedigree.  Their destruction is undermining U.S. foreign policy, as the Democrats — and all of us — will discover to our detriment when the loyal opposition again gains the Oval Office.