What's a "progressive foreign policy"?
Chris Murphy opens up a debate that will be good for moderates too
I appreciate Connecticut senator Chris Murphy’s sustained and vigorous criticism of the Trump regime. He’s putting himself out there in a way that few Democratic politicians are. In a recent Substack post entitled “Why We Need a Progressive Foreign Policy,” Murphy makes some very useful observations. He’s right that the post-World War II international order is on its last legs, thanks importantly to Donald Trump, although I’d argue for spreading the blame more widely, e.g. to Beijing and Moscow, long-time revisionist powers. I’m glad he recognizes that the now crumbling international order has reduced inter-state conflict and contributed to prosperity, though he also blames the postwar “neoliberal” economic order for driving “dignity out of work.”
At the moment, the loudest voices talking about a better foreign policy for the Democratic Party are focusing on a hard line against Israel, or at least against the current Israeli government, as the key to capturing younger voters. I don’t think this is a magic bullet to end the party’s woes, but that’s a topic for another day. The strongest point of Murphy’s argument is that he takes a big picture, systemic view, and sees the value of an international architecture to face global challenges cooperatively. The Democratic Party in fact needs to articulate a clear and compelling vision of a viable and effective post-Trump international system, why it will help Americans, and how we get there.
It’s hard to argue with some of Murphy’s specific ideas. Avoiding wars that cost lives and divert treasure from dealing with domestic challenges is right, though I’d add a “whenever possible” somewhere in there. Murphy also argues that Americans feel alone and powerless and underlines the effectiveness of Trump’s message that the US can bring international forces like globalization and the loss of US jobs, or like immigration, back under its control. US progressives need to empower Americans and empower local communities.
He calls for a “purposeful effort with our allies in Europe” to “break up concentrated corporate power” and use regulation to protect families and children from “poisonous technologies” like social media, AI, and crypto currency. The country needs a “responsible economic nationalism” and a laser-like focus on rooting out corruption. US engagement with the world should serve, in his view, “the poor, the disenfranchised, and the middle class – the average workers here at home.”
But while there is certainly a linkage between foreign relations and domestic politics, each of those spheres is also distinctive in its rules of operation, in what it can and cannot do. This requires some reflection.
Having devoted much of my adult life to the US-European relationship, I was glad to read Murphy’s call to work with “our allies in Europe.” Both the President and Vice President have gone out of their way to damage relations with the countries most like us. Europe will be our inescapable partner in any attempt to rebuild a values-based international system, along with many allied and partner countries in other world regions.
But I would like to understand better what Murphy means by “allies.” Multilateral entities like the EU, individual countries and peoples, the governments of at least some countries, or perhaps certain political parties? Perhaps all of the above. Is he thinking of some global progressive front? (There is in fact a network-type organization called the Progressive Alliance that brings together parties and movements from around the world, but it has not managed to carve out an incisive role.)
This may not be what Murphy has in mind, but I would argue against a selective approach to international partnerships based on presumed ideological or philosophical affinities that may actually be pretty superficial. Where there are shared basic political values and constitutional principles, cooperation among governments with quite different political complexions can still be effective and beneficial. Given Murphy’s support for international regulation to protect children and families from dangerous social media, AI etc. it’s worth noting the political transverse effort of the EU countries to move precisely in this direction. In November of last year, for example, the European Parliament adopted by an overwhelming, politically diverse majority, a report underlining the risks minors face online, calling for stronger protection against manipulative online strategies. There has been overwhelming, politically transverse support in France as well for legislation limiting social media access for minors.
In the European case, it’s important not to misunderstand the left/right divide. Political systems there have centers of gravity that are generally shifted to the left compared to that of the US. Even many parties that are very conservative by European standards, for example, would be treated as RINOs by the people who control Republican politics in the US, and the Democratic Party looks centrist in the European context. This broadens the range of potential European allies for Democrats or a Democratic administration on a whole series of issues. I’m all for a greater measure of what Murphy terms “economic nationalism,” especially when it comes to ensuring national sources of strategically important materials, technologies, and industrial capabilities. But support for greater economic nationalism in Europe comes from some parties Murphy might not like that much. It’s complicated.
I also wonder whether some of Murphy’s proposals are really feasible in a foreign policy setting. Battling corruption certainly does have important international dimensions, as efforts against money laundering have illustrated. But if the main corruption problems are concentrated corporate power and irresponsible billionaires, I think a focus on the domestic sphere is more appropriate. National distributions of wealth are domestic issues. And the problem of income inequality is frankly much greater in the US than in most other wealthy countries.
Overall, though, Chris Murphy is right to open up a very necessary debate. Given the considerable range of meanings the word “progressive” has had over the last 100+ years, I’d suggest talking about a “winning foreign policy platform for the Democratic Party” rather than a “progressive foreign policy.” But the point of debate is precisely to elicit different perspectives. So thanks, Chris. More to follow.
