# Posted 1:08 PM by Ariel David Adesnik  

ANOTHER HOMELESS DEMOCRAT: I had a long talk this morning with George Packer, a staff writer for the New Yorker who recently published an excellent in-depth account of the occupation. George also wrote (for the NYTM) what was probably the best article on reconstruction planning that made it into print before the war.

George actually got in touch with me because of my affiliation with Harvard, and not because of OxBlog. However, he is a daily consumer of Josh Marshall's Talking Points Memo. The reason George got in touch was because he heard that my dissertation focused on the role of American conservatives in returning democracy promotion to the foreign policy agenda in the 1980s.

Unfortunately, I don't think that I was as much help as George might've hoped. The reason is twofold. The first is that my research is still ongoing, so I know far more about the Carter era and the early Reagan years than I do about the later period.

Second, I don't have much to say (yet) about the neo-conservatives' stand on democracy promotion in the 1980s, as opposed to the Republican stand in general. Nonetheless, I think George was rather struck when I described how Elliot Abrams and Tom Harkin joined forces to help kick out the Pinochet government in Chile.

The reason for George's interest in early neo-con views on democracy promotion is that he is trying to unearth the intellectual roots of George W. Bush's post-9/11 agenda. While there is no question that neo-conservatives generally embraced democracy as the antidote to communism in the 1980s, in it is far less apparent that they had a serious interest in laying the institutional foundations for democratic reform in allied nations.

Instead, my general sense is that their focus was primarily on bashing the Soviet for the lack of democracy in Eastern Europe and supporting the freedom fighters/"freedom fighters" in Nicaragua. Nonetheless, as I emphasized to George, Reagan's rhetorical support for democracy brought idealism back on to the Republican agenda and made today's ideological rhetoric (and corresponding half-actions) possible.

As far as the current administration goes, George has very little nice to say. His tone when discussing Republicans in general is fairly similar to that of Josh Marshall. When it comes to Iraq, George has the cynicism bred of first-hand encounters with the unforgiveable incompetence of the CPA.

Yet in spite of it all, George is dangerously close to being a liberal hawk. Like TNR and like Michael Totten (and OxBlog, of course) George really believes that the Democratic party must reclaim its heritage as the true advocate of liberal internationalism, of using American power to ensure the spread of democratic values across the globe.

As such, George feels no less marginalized within the Democratic party than does TNR or Michael Totten or OxBlog. He was glad to hear however, that the Rachels and Patricks of this world are doing the best to create a real future for Democratic foreign policy. If the lib hawks are ever to have the success that the neo-cons have had, we have to have scores of young idealists ready to march into the next Democratic administration and ensure that it lives up to our ideals.

Not in 2004, however. With a sense of personal disappointment that can only grow out of true loyalty, George regrets the rise of Howard Dean and the resurgence of the ostrich-headed doves. And Wes Clark isn't much better. But more important than the views of Dean and Clark is the fact that the Democratic base has no real desire to unite power and idealism. Instead, most Democratic voters continue to embrace a sort of kneejerk multilateralism.

And so it goes. For as long as misery loves company, liberal hawks will be social animals. (0) opinions -- Add your opinion