jim-webb-democratic-ticketWhile many, if not all, Republican-leaning realists have—and for good reason, considering the alternatives—decided early on to hitch their wagon to Rand Paul’s star, might there be a realist option for those on the other side of the great political divide? The putative 2016 Democratic primary lineup, dominated as it is by former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, would seem at first glance to offer scant hope for realists, not least because Clinton herself seems to be completely held captive to the reigning neoconservative magical thinking on issues as diverse as Syria, Russia, the utility and rightness of the surveillance state, and the supposed threat posed to American interests by the IS group.

Astute analysts like The National Interest’s Jacob Heilbrunn and former Council on Foreign Relations president Leslie Gelb have both written that there are abundant signs that the neoconservatives, supreme political opportunists that they are, have been playing footsie with the former Secretary of State, with neoconservative-in-chief Robert Kagan going so far as to re-brand himself as a “liberal interventionist” in the hope of snagging a high-level appointment in what he clearly hopes will be a third Clinton term. And why would he not? Even a cursory look at Mrs. Clinton’s record reveals a politician only too eager to try to turn neoconservative fantasy into actual policy.

Mrs. Clinton’s championing of the disastrous interventions in Iraq and Libya; her support for ill-fated Afghan “surge”; her ill-considered comparison of Vladimir Putin to Adolph Hitler; her misplaced admiration for Mikhail Saakashvili; her enthusiasm for arming the so-called “moderate” Syrian rebels; her efforts to embroil the U.S. in a dispute with China over the Diaoyu/Senkaku islands, and much else besides, all raise serious questions about her judgment.

And so: What of Mrs. Clinton’s opponents? On foreign policy, former Maryland Governor Martin O’Malley (full disclosure: I wrote a white paper for his fledgling campaign early last year) seems to be something of a tabula rasa, very much along the lines of the last two Democratic governors to make it to the White House. This has its obvious drawbacks: Neocon-esque hardliners by and large carried the day under both Presidents Carter and Clinton. Given his limited foreign policy experience, history suggests Governor O’Malley would quickly (if he has not already) become captive to the bipartisan neoconservative consensus.

Since the midterms much speculation has centered on Senator Elizabeth Warren’s intentions. Is it possible she—besides being the most formidable progressive challenger to Clinton—might be amenable to realist arguments? Maybe. But as The American Conservative’s Daniel Larison has pointed out, “Warren has no distinctive foreign policy views to speak of, and insofar as she has had anything to say on the subject she has not distinguished herself as an antiwar or progressive champion.” Meanwhile, Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders is also testing the waters. Though Senator Sanders would no doubt be a forceful advocate for a foreign policy of restraint on the campaign trail, the chances of a self-proclaimed socialist gaining the White House are so remote as to render it pointless to include him in a list of credible Clinton opponents.

This brings us to former Virginia Senator Jim Webb. Senator Webb, as opposed to Governor O’Malley and Senator Warren, has a long record from which voters and pundits can surmise what U.S. foreign policy might look like should he gain the Oval Office. Clinton’s team is seemingly alive to the danger a Webb candidacy poses. Only recently US News and World Report noted that longtime Clinton henchman Philippe Reines had been pitching talk radio producers unflattering stories about Senator Webb. Clinton’s reliance on such low-grade courtiers such as Mr. Reines (and before him, people like Howard Wolfson and Sidney Blumenthal) should raise additional questions about the former Secretary’s powers of discernment, particularly when it comes to the character of some of her closest advisers.

But if and when the Clinton camp does finally come around to squaring up against Webb over actual issues, they will find an estimable opponent. In an interview with Iowa public television last August, Senator Webb previewed his probable lines of attack against Mrs. Clinton. While noting that he agrees with the administrations pivot to Asia, it is obvious he feels he has not received the credit he feels he deserves for initiating the policy, noting tartly that “we led that from our office” two years before the Obama administration announced it. According to Webb, the policy is warranted because he believes the U.S. needs to act as an “offshore balancer” in Asia.

Regarding Clinton’s criticism of Obama, that not doing “stupid stuff” is not exactly a policy, Senator Webb responded, “I’m not sure that was a fair way for somebody to summarize that the administration has done.” But Webb also took great issue with Obama’s failed Middle East policy, and according to Webb, “Secretary Clinton, quite frankly, was a part of enunciating this strategy.” Further:

I can’t understand why people would have supported the notion of arming certain groups inside Syria a couple of years ago…I say that not only as someone who has spent a lot of time working on foreign policy, but as a journalist in Beirut in 1983 when the word I got from Marines on the ground was: ‘Never get involved in a five-sided argument.’

His criticism of Obama’s intervention in Libya, of which Mrs. Clinton was a vocal and visible proponent, has been scathing and well as prescient, writing, “Under the objectively undefinable rubric of ‘humanitarian intervention,’ President Obama has arguably established the authority of the president to intervene militarily virtually anywhere…” The contrast with the intervention-happy former Secretary could not be clearer.

As 2016 fast approaches, Clinton supporters may begin to lose sleep over a Webb insurgency.

Books on the topic of this essay may be found in The Imaginative Conservative Bookstore. Republished with gracious permission of The American Conservative

Print Friendly, PDF & Email
"All comments are subject to moderation. We welcome the comments of those who disagree, but not those who are disagreeable."
5 replies to this post
  1. Maybe I’m not over the flu yet, but the point of this piece is too obscure. The title suggests a Webb-Clinton ticket. The conclusion suggests Clinton has reason to fear a Webb insurgency. And the argument in-between suggests this election, or the Democratic primary will turn on foreign policy.
    At least I can agree that Robert Kagan and his wife (who served in the Clinton State Dept) are an ambitious couple. Perhaps even paradigmatic neocons — now also to be known as “liberal interventionists”.
    A simpler thesis would simply be that we, as a people, as well as those with foreign policy interests and experience, have no real idea of what U.S. foreign policy should be. Yes, of course, we are “for” peace and prosperity and against terrorism, genocide, etc. But matching our interests to our resources with regard to Russia, China, Iran, Iraq, global financial institutions, terrorism, migration of people …. We have an economy and a political system that works (for us) and a military the equal of almost all of the rest of the world combined. Accomplished, educated, sophisticated diplomats, soldiers, businessmen, journalists and academics galore. But no overriding concept — not realism or idealism; not neorealism or neb-idealism; not the discredited neo-cons.
    The author is right about Clinton — being pretty quick to intervene (although temperamentally and tactically cautious) and almost always wrong. Webb is temperamentally almost a perfect opposite: let’s fight first and then figure out why. But his foreign policy overall seems entirely unclear — “pivot to Asia” notwithstanding.
    Politically, Webb could be a surprisingly effective challenger to Hillary Clinton. To think he could defeat her is fanciful. Their being on the same ticket would be a delight to watch. But whether Clinton actually runs, in my view, is a far more open question.

  2. I share Mr. Carden’s hopes as someone who was even willing to support Howard Dean despite some obvious differences on domestic issues if it meant reigning in the republic-destroying tendencies of the present foreign policy consensus. With Romney, I supported him despite his advisors because I hoped his business experience left a real-world mark big enough not to blunder too far…but if the Democrats field a good candidate, who knows?…

    That said: I know it’s not Mr. Carden’s fault, or idea, but can we please not label our views as “realist” thus leaving the field of idealism to people who support mass bombing and endless war (hardly idealistic).

    Our opponents are not idealist contras to our realism. They are simply insane and often stupid. Americans have always had to balance the demamds of realism with the inclination to idealism – this debate is normal, and there’s nothing wrong in principle with internationalist idealism.

    The destruction of Iraq was no more an act of idealism than realism – the venture was insane and stupid.

    The political debate is between the great tradition of the American tension between realism and idealism on “our” side and the new practice of inansity and stupidity on “their” side.

  3. Poor Hillary, to review her history is to engage in a continuing parade of blunders. Never has so much been said in support of so little. A woman who would give clowns a bad name.

Leave a Reply

%d bloggers like this: