New American Strategies
for Security and Peace
Conference Transcripts:
Richard C. Leone
Prepared Remarks.
You can now watch this speech in streaming video:
Download this speech in MS
Word format.
Download this speech in Acrobat
(pdf) format.
Welcome on behalf of the sponsors—The American
Prospect, the Center for American Progress and my own
institution, The Century Foundation.
We have come together today because of our concern
about America’s present course. We believe, as
do nearly all Americans, that the nation faces some
of the gravest threats in its history. We also believe
that our responses to these threats—particularly
those involving sharp breaks with past bipartisan and
multilateral approaches—are more likely to be
wise and to be supported over time if they are subject
to vigorous and open debate. Testing ideas in public
is necessary in a democracy. It is our best assurance
of self-correction; trust in government, and successful
attainment of our goals.
One of the special challenges of the terrorist threat,
of course, is that we can not easily separate our defenses
at home from the strategies we pursue abroad in just
two short years. For example, homeland security has
become the rationale for changes in our system of justice,
reductions in our right to privacy, increases in government
and business secrecy, new constraints on transportation
and travel, significant alterations in immigration practices,
and a host of other revisions in public and private
activity.
Over the same period we have undergone an even sharper
break with many of our time-tested approaches to foreign
policy and military strategy...
These dramatic shifts were possible in the stunning
aftershock of 911. Americans—all across the political
spectrum—were willing and eager to rally behind
the administration. This rare impetus toward unity extended
far beyond our borders, offering an unprecedented potential
for a grand global coalition against terrorism—an
alliance that could have encompassed nearly the entire
civilized world.
But it is now clear that the domestic political consensus
became the springboard, not for a new internationalism,
but for a set of aggressive departures form past principles
and policy. Now, as the evidence mounts that our current
course requires both greater risks and costs than were
originally understood questions have emerged. The nation
is ready for a resumption of the normal give and take
of democracy; thirsty for more information straight
talk and vigorous debate.
Less than two weeks after Pearl Harbor, Ohio Senator
Robert A. Taft—the man known as “Mr. Republican”—opined
“as a matter of general principle, I believe there
can be no doubt that criticism in time of war is essential
to the maintenance of any kind of democratic government…too
many people desire to suppress criticism simply because
they think it will give some comfort to the enemy…
If that comfort makes the enemy feel better for a few
moments, they are welcome to it as far as I am concerned,
because the maintenance of the right of criticism in
the long run will do the country maintaining it a great
deal more good than it will do the enemy, and it will
prevent mistakes which might otherwise occur.”
Taft had a powerful point…and it was not primarily
about party politics; it was about democracy and government.
The politics of “permanent emergency” are
hard and perilous but they are nothing compared to the
dangers of an atmosphere in which government and policies
are shielded from examination and accountability. It’s
the job of the opposition, the press, and the public
to insist on full and open discourse about what we are
doing and why there is nothing unpatriotic about pressing
such questions—rather they should be seen as fundamental
expressions of our deepest national beliefs.
In the short run, patriotism can be channeled into
support for conflict. Increases in fear can be translated
into acquiescence for more security even at the expense
of freedom. But in the end, neither of these sources
provide the abiding strength of a nation armed not just
with the latest security hardware or the best army,
but also with a deep belief in its course. A consensus
based upon understanding and informed judgment must
be politically more valuable and more durable than one
founded on deeply felt but inevitably transitory emotions.
In that spirit, we welcome you and look forward to
hearing your views over the next two days.
Thank You.
Richard C. Leone is the President of The Century Foundation.
|