Policy goblins

If consistency is truly the hobgoblin of small minds, we don't have to worry that hobgoblins are controlling our foreign policy. I won't comment on small minds.\nWhile this is an attack on the foreign policy of the Bush administration, it is just as much an attack on the foreign policy of the Democratic Party. Neither party seems capable of being intellectually honest when it comes to promoting a worldview, or designing a plan to achieve that worldview.\nIn previous columns, I've discussed the hypocrisy of the Bush administration's foreign policy. My biggest problem isn't that Bush wants to spread freedom, democracy and the rule of law. I'm probably a bit more realistic in my foreign policy views, but I can accept this as a noble goal. The problem is that it is inconsistent in its application of its stated principles. It wants to promote democracy, but not if we don't like the winners (Hamas in Palestine) or if the current dictator is just too helpful (as in Pakistan or Egypt). The rule of law is good for everyone ... except us.\nHowever, the Democrats are just as bad. I'm not sure they even have coherent foreign policy goals and strategies. But to the extent they do, they are just as hypocritical and inconsistent as Bush. They depict the Iraq war as one of the biggest mistakes ever. It may well be. But at the same time, they support a Western military intervention for humanitarian reasons in another Muslim country that isn't a threat to the United States: Sudan. They can't have it both ways. Either military intervention in Muslim countries to stop atrocities is right, or wrong. This doesn't mean they can't criticize the undeniable bungling in Iraq, but if they support intervention in Sudan, then they should be calling for us to do it right in Iraq, not to get out. \nPart of the reason the United States is held in such low esteem by the rest of the world is because we're not consistent. We don't treat all countries and people the same. The rest of the world sees us as coldly pursuing our national self-interest. Being Machiavellian itself isn't a problem -- lots of countries are. The problem is that we pretend to be Wilsonians pursuing the greater good for all. We need to match our deeds with our rhetoric, whichever policy we choose to pursue. \nPersonally, I'd argue for a fairly Machiavellian foreign policy leavened by a little Wilsonianism. There must be a moral dimension to foreign policy, but it's OK to be honest about pursuing national interests. But we must be honest about it. Claiming to look out for everyone else, while actually just looking out for ourselves like we're doing now, is the worst possible choice. \nWe should look out for the good of the world, while acknowledging the limits to such a policy. Then we must consistently implement this policy. A few hobgoblins running around Washington wouldn't be such a bad thing.