Exceptionally American

I might be tempted to do a full critique of the foreign policy portion of the Republican platform, which calls itself  “American exceptionalism.”  This is a phrase that has now become so all-encompassing, and so different in meaning to different people, that it is essentially meaningless.

But I won’t.  Instead I’ll stick with the section on national security strategy, which manages to treat the subject as an exclusively military preserve.  It starts well enough:

We will honor President Reagan’s legacy of peace through strength by advancing the most cost-effective programs and policies crucial to our national security, including our economic security and fiscal solvency.  To do that, we must honestly assess the threats facing this country, and we must be able to articulate candidly to the American people our priorities for the use of taxpayer dollars to address those threats.

Let’s leave aside the question of whether President Reagan gave a hoot about cost-effectiveness.  Let’s also leave aside the more recent presidency of George W. Bush, who used American strength mistakenly to go to war, weakening the nation in many ways.  Let’s instead look forward.  In the very next sentence the GOP abandons its focus on priorities and treats all threats as equal, and as military:

We must deter any adversary who would attack us or use terror as a tool of government. Every potential enemy must have no doubt that our capabilities, our commitment, and our will to defeat them are clear, unwavering, and unequivocal.

No hint here of risks arising from failed or failing states, epidemics, social unrest or economic failure.  All adversaries are equal.  There are no priorities, cost effectiveness is irrelevant, candid articulation is abandoned.

But then we turn to the section entitled “America’s Generosity: International Assistance that Makes a Difference.”  Ambivalence reigns again.  We are enormously generous, and for good reason:

Assistance should be seen as an alternative means of keeping the peace, far less costly in both dollars and human lives than military engagement.

Too bad that was forgotten in the national security section.  But then the GOP says foreign assistance should be done through the private sector and the Millenium Challenge Corporation (MCC).  Never mind that the private sector relies heavily on the U.S. government to fund its efforts in a chaotic situation like Iraq in 2006/7.  Or that the risks to American national security arise less frequently in countries eligible for MCC assistance, which is intended for those who already committed to reforms.  Of course they aren’t completely immune:  MCC has spent $460 million in Mali, which is struggling now with a military coup and extreme Islamist insurgency despite the relatively benign track it was on.

I’ll be amused to see if the next Republican administration cuts off assistance to Mali, Yemen, South Sudan, or Pakistan because “aid money should follow positive outcomes, not pleas for more cash in the same corrupt official pockets.”  But don’t get me wrong:  I’m not an enthusiast for aid in general, and I do believe it should be used, sparingly, to further U.S. interests.  But that means it has to be used where we face national security risks, even under non-ideal conditions.

The problem with these bits of the Republican platform is not that they are entirely wrong but that they are inconsistent and self-contradictory.  They state bold principles that, if applied, would lead to dramatically different conclusions from the ones stated.  Reminds me a bit of some of the founding fathers, whose boldness on our being created equal did not translate into freeing the slaves.  Maybe that is what is exceptionally American.