FrontPage picked up our post providing the St. Paul Pioneer Press account of Walter Mondale's Bush-bashing conclave in St. Paul this past Friday: "The Carterites strike back." FrontPage notes the perfect timing of the conclave, on the eve of our apprehension of Saddam Hussein.

It seems to me that the Mondale conclave deserves more attention than it has received. Not only Mondale, but also Zbig Brzezinski and William Perry spoke at the event, and all three made remarks that are worthy of comment.

Edward Morrissey of the excellent Captain's Quarters site took notice of the proceedings in "Underwhelming irony." I'm not aware of any discussion of the event elsewhere. I want to address the Carter connection in general and Walter Mondale's contribution in particular for readers who may be younger than we are, or whose memory may not be as long as ours.

Charles Krauthammer is not only a distinguished columnist, he is also a trained psychiatrist. Twenty-five years ago he discovered the psychiatric syndrome "Secondary Mania." Commenting recently on Howard Dean’s reference to the "most interesting theory" that President Bush might have had foreknowledge of the 9/11 attack on the United States, Krauthammer announced the discovery of a new mental disorder that he named "Bush Derangement Syndrome." Krauthammer defined BDS as "the acute onset of paranoia in otherwise normal people in reaction to the policies, the presidency -- nay -- the very existence of George W. Bush."

Howard Dean and other active Democratic politicians such as Ted Kennedy (who was first diagnosed as a victim of pathological Bush hatred by Krauthammer) are not the only victims of BDS. Former Vice President and Democratic elder statesman Walter Mondale has succumbed to what has become an epidemic of the syndrome.

Mondale presided over a program devoted to discussion of the Bush administration’s foreign policy at Macalester College on December 12. At the program, according to the detailed report carried by the St. Paul Pioneer Press, Mondale accused President Bush of forcing democracy in Iraq and Afghanistan "at bayonet point." Mondale asserted that democratization was an approach creating more enemies than friends for the United States than friends, and did little to prevent terrorism.

Mondale alleged that the administration's policies depart from bipartisan post-World War II American foreign policy aimed at forming international coalitions to address national security problems. Mondale stated, "I cannot understand why the current administration believes that throwing all this out the window — to be replaced by what I see to be their radical, unilateral, go-it-alone, in-your-face approach — can strengthen America. I don't see how it can."

Mondale further alleged that the administration’s "announced doctrine of pre-emption and their policy of dominance frightens our friends and fuels animosity and rage upon which our true enemies rely."

Those of us who lived as adults through the four years of the Carter administration in which Walter Mondale last served as a public officeholder will find the manifestations of BDS in Mondale’s statements especially strange. Although Mondale seems to believe that the Carter administration foreign policy in which he played such an active role should serve as a benchmark, we may be excused for thinking rather that it was an unmitigated disaster.

We recall, for example, how Carter proudly announced that the United States had overcome its "inordinate fear of Communism," famously planted a kiss on the cheek of Leonid Brezhnev, and then reacted with shock when the Soviet Union invaded Afghanistan.

Carter was not much of a student of modern history. The aggressive designs of the Soviet Union came as a surprise to him. With respect to the invasion, he stated that "this action of the Soviets has made a more dramatic change in my own opinion of what the Soviets’ ultimate goals are than anything they’ve done in the previous time I’ve been in office." The consequences of Carter’s misjudgments regarding the Soviet Union were severe; he himself described the invasion as "the most serious threat to world peace since World War II."

Around the same time, Iranian followers of Ayatollah Khomeni took 67 Americans hostage in the American embassy in Tehran. Over the succeeding 444 days, Carter tried idle threats, vain pleading, and pathetically ineffectual military action to resolve the hostage crisis. Only the landslide election and subsequent inauguration of Ronald Reagan, with the implicit but plausible threat of serious military reprisals, ultimately freed the hostages.

Henry Kissinger observed at the time that the Carter administration had managed the extraordinary feat of having, at one and the same time, "the worst relations with our allies, the worst relations with our adversaries, and the most serious upheavals in the developing world since the end of the Second World War."

These are the foreign policy credentials than Mondale brings to his assessment of the Bush administration. With these credentials, a reasonable person would conclude that discretion is the better part of valor and bite his tongue. But if Mondale’s credentials to assesss the Bush administration’s foreign policy are weak, his assessment of the policy itself is bizarre.

Mondale complains that the United States has brought democracy to Afghanistan and Iraq through military force. The underlying criticism of the Bush administration about the use of military force recalls the worst misjudgments of the Carter administration. Mondale would apparently prefer an extended exercise in hand-wringing of the kind that proved so effective in the Carter administration’s handling of the hostage crisis.

Moreover, Mondale simply ignores the necessity after 9/11 of overthrowing the Taliban regime in Afghanistan in order to deprive al Qaeda of its home base. It is embarrassing that Mondale ignores this rather basic point. Here the acuity of Krauthammer’s insight regarding BDS is perhaps most pertinent. Can one imagine Mondale complaining that the United States brought democracy to Germany and Japan "at bayonet point" after World War II?

Mondale’s description of the bipartisan foreign policy favoring international coalitions during the past 50 years is a fantasy. When necessary, the United States has always taken action on its own in order to protect its critical security interests.

As a United States senator, Mondale himself was a supporter of America’s unilateral military efforts to resist the Communist conquest of South Vietnam so long as that effort was led by Lyndon Johnson. On the other hand, he also became a critical supporter of efforts to undermine the prosecution of the war once it became the responsibility of Richard Nixon. His own position was anything but bipartisan and had nothing to do with the presence or absence of an international coalition.

The United States did have a bipartisan post-World War II foreign policy, although it is not the one Mondale describes. Indeed, Mondale shows no familiarity with it. The true bipartisan post-World War II foreign policy was the doctrine of containment of the Soviet Union.

Moreover, alone among post-World War II administrations, it was in fact the Carter administration that departed from this bipartisan foreign policy. Carter signaled his departure from the policy in the May 1977 Notre Dame commencement address in which he proclaimed our having outgrown our "inordinate fear of Communism."

When confronted with the crisis of the Afghanistan invasion, Carter formulated "the Carter doctrine," warning the Soviet Union that it risked nuclear war if it advanced beyond Afghanistan to the Gulf states. "The Carter doctrine" belatedly returned the administration to the policy of containment.

Mondale does no better describing current Bush administration policy – "their radical, unilateral, go-it-alone, in-your-face approach" – than he does describing past history. The Bush administration has of course undertaken many successful efforts to enlist allies in the war on terrorism.

Which leaves the questions of Iraq and preemption. After 9/11, most Americans instinctively understand the common sense supporting the refusal to await further attacks on American soil before undertaking defensive action. As applied to Iraq, most Americans believe the overthrow of Saddam Hussein was good in itself and consistent with our need to defend ourselves. As additional evidence of Saddam Hussein’s evil deeds and connections to al Qaeda becomes known, that belief will grow.

One more prediction. Until that time, BDS will continue to spread.

Posted by Scott at 06:16 AM  |    |  

Trackback Pings

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.powerlineblog.com/mt/mt-diespammers.cgi/5382

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Reflections on BDS as manifested in WFM:

» Power Line Rebuts Mondale from Captain's Quarters
Power Line's essay is a grim reminder of the dark days in modern American history when defeatists held power and America was in full retreat in global politics. While the post-office careers of both Mondale and Carter demonstrate the forgiveness that ... [Read More]

Tracked on December 15, 2003 08:27 AM