Not Our Problem
Posted on January 1st, 2009
by Daniel Larison |
|
Via Scott on the main blog, I see that Greenwald writes a longer post discussing the implications of U.S. policy that ignores the neutralist position preferred by 70% of the American public that I mentioned earlier today. As Greenwald observes, the political class’ formulation of policy that large majorities reject outright is standard practice, but it is particularly obvious when it comes to U.S.-Israel relations. We have seen it with refusal to end the war in Iraq, of course, but it is also a common feature of our immigration policy and, to a lesser extent, our trade policy. So in this respect the complete disregard for public opinion is a normal part of how the political class operates when it comes to major policy decisions: for various reasons, it adopts the policies most at odds with popular views and runs the government in the least representative way possible. As Greenwald says:
Americans shouldn’t be in the position of endlessly debating Israel’s security situation and its endless religious and territorial conflicts with its neighbors. That should be for Israeli citizens to do, not for Americans.
There is something a bit rich in the “pro-Israel” insistence that Israel must do such-and-such a thing in Lebanon or Gaza or wherever to assert its sovereignty, and meanwhile a foreign government provides it generous subsidies and possesses the leverage to dictate to it what it will do in what it regards as its internal affairs. The patron-client relationship between the U.S. and Israel is ultimately a burden on Israel and it becomes at best an enormous distraction for U.S. policy in the region. It should not be for us to debate what Israel does on its borders, because we should not be so closely tied to and implicated in the actions of its government that we should have anything to say about it.
Filed under: foreign policy, politics
There’s a little problem with your contention that 71% of Americans think we ought to be neutral in the conflict – the survey doesn’t ask them to characterize our present policies. As it happens, other surveys have. In 2003, Pew found a strong plurality (47%) of Americans were of the opinion that our policies in that arena were fair, while only 27% thought they favored Israel too much, and 8% that they tilted to the Palestinians.
In other words, that 71% who think we should be neutral lumps together disparate groups. The bulk of them consider our present policies to be fair; their endorsement of neutrality can hardly be a repudiation of those policies. It also undoubtedly includes some on both sides who think present policy tilts too far in the opposite direction, and who see ‘neutrality’ as a necessary rebalancing. But neutrality isn’t the same as passivity or disengagement.
That’s why most surveys ask which side respondents favor – it presents a choice between alternatives. Asking respondents if they think America should be neutral is like asking them if they’re moderate or middle class. We’re all middle-class moderates, because we assume that our own incomes and views are normative. We all want America’s policies to be fair and neutral, just so long as that neutral balance reflects our own.
If almost half of Americans believe we are neutral or fair to both sides right now, they are clearly misinformed. The 71% figure expresses a strong desire to not be involved in the conflict one way or the other. If a large number of them believe that we are not taking sides at the present time, once again they are misinformed. Asking which side respondents favor in a conflict in which they would prefer not to favor a side is pointless. Which side do they favor in a potential conflict between Eritrea and Ethiopia? Who cares? Almost everyone would prefer not to take sides, even though current policy actually does privilege Ethiopia in our relations. You would have us believe that most people are fine with current policy, while I would argue that most people have no clue what current policy is.
Again, I think you’re investing entirely too much in a single, highly questionable poll. Its methodology was junk; it consisted of 940 respondents to an internet panel. The question it actually asked was: “In the Israel-Palestinian conflict, do you think the United States should take Israel’s side, take the Palestinians’ side, or not take either side?”
I think it’s a stretch to use those results to argue that a clear majority of Americans support a neutralist position. That’s particularly the case because a large number of far more reputable polling operations, which actually called random samples, have reported strikingly high support for Israel – and a widespread perception that current American policy is fair.
Now, is it possible that this is the result of ignorance? Sure, it’s possible. It’s even likely. But that leaves you in a difficult spot. You want to argue that the American people are educated enough to make an informed decision about what our foreign policy ought to be, but so ignorant that they do not understand what it presently is. I don’t think you can have it both ways. If you’re going to appeal to democratic sentiment to support neutrality, you have to be able to credit the public with the ability to express its views.
“But neutrality isn’t the same as passivity or disengagement.”
And what exactly would be wrong with disengagement? In fact, disengagement is precisely what most of us are suggesting.
Well, I’d suggest that disengagement is the policy that the Bush Administration has largely pursued with respect to the Israeli/Palestinian conflict over the past eight years, and that it has yielded unfortunate results.
But yes, I’m aware that both you and Larison would like to see a greater degree of disengagement. My point is that there’s fairly solid evidence that most Americans disagree.
Which is not, of course, dispositive. You can find a majority for all sorts of inane positions, and for many reasonable ones. My objection is to the notion that most Americans support disengagement, or that they would, if they only had available to them more complete information. That’s a tempting fantasy. Every advocate of a minority viewpoint is convinced that, if only the public understood the issue as well as he, it would change its mind.
The proof of the pudding, of course, is in the eating. There’s been a large and vocal minority supporting disengagement in this country since its founding. Critics of Israel, and of America’s relationship with the Jewish State, are not rare, nor are they shy. These positions and ideas are not new; they just happen not to be persuasive, at the moment, to an electoral majority. Reading these posts, I’m reminded of some committed Marxists I knew in college. They honestly and earnestly believed that, if only the American people could be exposed to the real facts and then have the opportunity to assert their will, revolution would be at hand. Opposition, they felt, always stemmed from ignorance.
I have the greatest respect for those who adhere to their views in the face of popular opposition. That, ultimately, is how change occurs – shifting attitudes and circumstances sometimes present the opportunity to change the popular consensus. But let’s be honest about the nature of the project. There’s no elite conspiracy subverting the popular will on foreign policy, no Foggy Bottom cabal willfully ignoring the democratic consensus. In the broadest terms, American foreign policy has always tended to reflect popular sentiment. When it moves too far out of whack, electoral pressure forces it back into line. Democratic processes, of course, are messy – and the most vocal and involved tend to have an outsize role. Almost no policies of our government reflect a position espoused by 51% of the public – they tend to be cobbled together from the positions advocated by interest groups of various kinds, frequently satisfying no one fully. That’s how the sausage is made. Foreign policy is no different.
So if you want to argue for disengagement, go right ahead. But acknowledge that the nature of the project is persuasion, rather than restoring popular sovereignty.
The US was not disengaged over the last few years, Bush was. That is an important distinction. The US was still providing billions in military aid to Israel. If Israel wants to wage war against the Palestinians, I prefer they do it with their own money and political capital. Let them bear the full financial cost of their wars.