When mainstream Democratic politicians talk about Iraq, they sound more like Republicans than like the actual Democratic citizens they claim to represent.
Matthew Yglesias has risen to prominence as a political commentator by being the wisest and wittiest writer to articulate his anger over this ridiculous state of affairs. He's been profiled as an up-and-comer in both New York and GQ magazines, and the Wall Street Journal recently called him "a ringleader-of-sorts for the D.C. blogging community."
With his famously sharp mind (and tongue), Yglesias refutes the two most important misconceptions about recent American foreign policy. The first is that Bush is an idealist. As Yglesias makes clear, Bush is a nationalist plain and simple, as a my-way-or-the-highway agenda takes precedence over any other supposed guiding ideology. The second is that the Democrats don't have a useful foreign policy tradition when they do. Liberal internationalism may not be exciting or perfect, but promoting global order through international law and stable institutions has brought about a lot more peace and prosperity than imperialism, isolationism, communism, or any other way of approaching the world.
So what have the Democrats been espousing instead of liberal internationalism? Not much, according to Yglesias. It's common to read articles by liberals calling for big, bold new ideas, but they don't have any, and don't have any explanations for why the old ones won't work. Democrats have come unmoored from their principles on foreign policy out of political opportunism, but this path has failed to give them a decisive political advantage on security issues despite the massive failure of Bush-style nationalism.
As Heads in the Sand makes clear, Americans can no longer support reckless policies from the Republicans, and should loudly shout down any Democrat who's more interested in what seems politically safe than what makes the world safer.
