On June 26th, Democratic Representative Joe Crowley of New York was defeated in a primary challenge from the left by Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, a twenty-eight-year-old former organizer for Senator Bernie Sanders’ 2016 presidential run and member of the Democratic Socialists of America. Ocasio-Cortez’s victory shocked many as Crowley, the powerful chairman of the House Democratic Caucus, had been named as a potential replacement for Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi and led in several polls in the weeks leading up to election day. Yet despite the upset, Democratic National Committee chairman Tom Perez said Ocasio-Cortez “represents the future of our party;” and based on her support amongst younger voters, he would seem to be correct.
In addition to running on a progressive platform similar to that of Senator Sanders in 2016, Ocasio-Cortez’s policy positions are indicative of a larger trend within the Democratic Party. Over the last eighteen months, Democrats have begun pivoting to the left of their Obama-Era stances as a result of President Donald Trump’s actions in an effort to oppose him as strongly as possible.
Take immigration for instance. President Barack Obama famously deported more people than any of his predecessors and called for tough and secure borders, while simultaneously supporting a path to citizenship and implementing the DACA program, which protected minors who were brought to the U.S illegally from deportation. All of which were at the time moderate. Obama called them, “common sense” solutions. Yet Trump’s rhetoric and actions on immigration, regardless of how disrespectful and inhumane they may be, have caused Ocasio-Cortez to call for the abolition of the Immigration and Customs Enforcement agency, or ICE, and a number of other high-profile Democrats are now doing the same. The policy represents a strong shift to the left from Obama’s positions. Thanks to Trump, Democrats who used to back Obama’s “common sense” immigration reform and strong border security measures would be hard pressed to utter any sort of support for them now.
The same is happening in healthcare. Before Trump, Democrats supported working to improve the flaws within the Affordable Care Act. Regardless of what many in the Republican Party may say, President Obama’s signature legislative achievement was both a moderate plan and a compromise solution to one of the nation’s toughest and most divisive issues. However Trump’s efforts to strip Americans of their health insurance and wreck the Obamacare market through repeal of the individual mandate have led rising Democratic stars such as Ocasio-Cortez to instead call for a more radical Medicare for All plan. Again, due to Trump, attempting to fix the flaws in Obamacare is seen as outdated while support for a Single Payer system has now become a litmus test for Democratic presidential hopefuls in 2020.
Across many issues, the pattern remains. Democrats under Obama supported moderate policies and positions. Along comes Trump, and Democrats move to the left to oppose him as strongly as possible. Ocasio-Cortez and her campaign platform embody this trend, and now it “represents the future of [the] party.”
Yet when it comes to foreign policy and support for the U.S-led liberal, international order, the pattern stops. On domestic policy, Ocasio-Cortez’s platform is filled with aggressive stances opposing Trump, and yet there is no mention of his tariffs jeopardizing the global network of free trade, no position on Russian election interference constituting a threat to American democracy and democracy worldwide, and no reference to Trump’s rhetoric and actions against NATO threatening the Western-democratic alliance. What explains the dichotomy?
Given the lack of criticism Trump has received from Ocasio-Cortez for his actions, it has become clear that the far left is willing to go along with the President in renouncing America’s role as the world’s leading economic, democratic, and military power. For instance, Ocasio-Cortez’s lack of opposition to Trump’s tariffs and potential instigation of a global trade war can be explained because, like Trump, progressives have their own issues with free trade. President Obama championed trade deals through pursuit of the Trans-Pacific Partnership and the U.S-Korea Free Trade Agreement. In contrast, Bernie Sanders said in 2015 that agreements like these “have been a disaster for the American worker,” because “corporations that shut down here move abroad.” Later in a Democratic primary debate, Sanders even touted his “being on the picket line in opposition to NAFTA” in the 1990s. And Sanders is not alone. A number of left-leaning economists such as J.W Mason and Dean Baker, co-director of the Center for Policy and Economic Research, have also spoken out strongly against the benefits of free trade. Therefore, Ocasio-Cortez’s lack of criticism towards- and agreement with- the President’s trade policy is actually in line with her fellow progressives. What’s notable is that just as Trump’s victory represented the triumph of protectionism within the GOP, Ocasio-Cortez’s has done the same for Democrats.
Second, similar to her silence on trade, there is not a word in Ocasio-Cortez’s platform, criticizing Russia’s efforts to sway the result of the 2016 Presidential election in favor of Donald Trump. Likewise, I have yet to hear her denounce President Trump’s denials of what unquestionably constitutes a foreign threat to the strength of American democracy, or comment on how the President’s partisan attacks against the Justice Department, FBI, and the media over investigating those threats are eroding public faith in American institutions. Moreover, Bernie Sanders– for all his vocal support and outspoken appeals for progressive policies–has not really spoken strongly either about the dangers Russian meddling poses to democracy worldwide. Why is that?
I suspect it stems from the fact that many on the far left have long seen American democracy and its institutions as intensely flawed, and therefore don’t view them with much essential value. If the American political system was not valuable to progressives to begin with, then attacks by foreign adversaries against it are not perceived of as being particularly threatening. Similarly, if the U.S can’t reasonably claim to represent democratic ideals, then it has no moral right to tout democracy around the world. Though conservatives always questioned whether or not President Obama “loved America,” he never failed to speak glowingly about the country and its political system, saying “I believe in American exceptionalism with every fiber of my being,” and “in no other country is my story even possible.” Certainly those statements illustrate a belief in a system worth protecting from foreign threats. Yet as Peter Beinart noted in The Atlantic on July 4th, it is hard to imagine Ocasio-Cortez, or any progressive of her caliber for that matter, saying something similar. Thus, unlike Trump’s immigration policy, his passivity regarding defense of democracy and actions in assistance of its demise have failed to provoke Ocasio-Cortez and others on the far left to speak out.
When President Woodrow Wilson announced America’s entrance into World War I with the intention of making “the world safe for democracy,” he became the first U.S. President to articulate a belief in defending the American system of government both at home and abroad. Trump’s victory however symbolized the end of a Republican Party that cared about Wilson’s conviction of protecting American ideals and institutions in the face of foreign threats. Apparently this view now constitutes “the future” of the Democratic Party as well.
Third, Ocasio-Cortez’s platform lacked criticism of Trump’s dismissal and undermining of American multilateral military alliances such as NATO. Additionally, she has not discussed in any of her post-Election Day interviews the effect those actions have had on weakening and eroding the U.S.-led liberal order that every post-War President, including Barack Obama, has strongly supported. On the campaign trail Trump consistently complained about NATO, lamenting the fact that our European allies weren’t paying their fair share towards their defense and that the distribution of costs was “unfair, economically, to us.” Just this past week in advance of the NATO summit in Brussels, the President levied criticism at German Chancellor Angela Merkel, claiming Germany free rides off U.S security guarantees and threatening to pull back the 35,000 U.S troops deployed to Germany. Such actions are indicative of Trump’s belief that America is getting a raw deal when it comes to NATO and that the U.S would be better off avoiding the international entanglements and obligations that come with the alliance.
When it comes to scaling back U.S military commitments abroad, progressives like Ocasio-Cortez often agree with Trump. Bernie Sanders has long sought to cut American defense spending and once criticized President Obama’s plan to combat ISIS for not encouraging Middle Eastern states to “step up their military efforts and take more responsibility for the security and stability of their regions,” a statement with echoes of Trump’s rhetoric towards Europe. To quote Reihan Salam, the executive editor at the National Review, Ocasio-Cortez is actually “keeping with the fact that many on the hard left have their own objections to the status quo in U.S foreign policy.” Whether it be military interventions or alliances, progressives aren’t shy about their belief that the U.S should take a less activist role. So just as Trump has cowed the GOP into reversing and renouncing its history of support for multilateral agreements and mutual defense, if Ocasio-Cortez’s politics truly constitute the future, then the Democratic Party will soon do the same.
In 1947 when Republican Senate Foreign Relations Committee Chairman Arthur Vandenberg declared that partisan politics should stop “at the water’s edge,” he solidified a bipartisan consensus behind Democratic President Harry Truman’s proposals to drag the U.S from its isolationist past towards an internationalist future. However President Trump’s takeover and transformation of the GOP into an inward-looking party hostile to globalization has threatened the strength of this internationalist consensus. Moreover, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, the likely soon-to-be Democratic-Socialist Congresswoman from New York, who openly and proudly opposes Trump on domestic issues, has yet to criticize the President and GOP for this radical shift. If the Republicans are the party of Trump and Ocasio-Cortez is the Democrats’ future, then there may yet be a bipartisan consensus on foreign affairs. It just isn’t the one Truman and Vandenberg had in mind.
The belief that the U.S should abdicate its world leadership arises for different reasons on the Trumpian Right and the Progressive Left. While Trump believes America is better off when it doesn’t concern itself with the interests of the rest of the world, progressives believe the world is better off when America doesn’t. Both positions however are intensely flawed. There is widespread agreement amongst economists on the benefits of free trade for all parties involved. American democracy, imperfect as it may be, is a stronger force for good in the world than Russian or Chinese autocracy. And without military alliances to defend Western liberalism from Moscow and Beijing, there is no way to guarantee its survival. Hopefully one of America’s two parties will recognize this reality before it’s too late.
The abundance of news focused on the U.S. presidential election has left little room for the discussion of President Obama’s national security legacy. This intense spotlight on the controversial candidates limited projections of the long-term repercussions of President Obama’s policies and the precedents they have set for the next president. Two weeks ago, UCLA’s Burkle Center for International Relations, in conjunction with the Center for Near Eastern Studies and the International and Comparative Law Program, hosted a conference on President Obama’s drone legacy that specifically focused on the use of weaponized drones against terrorists. The conference consisted of two panels hosting, among others, distinguished Georgetown Law Professor Marty Lederman and Ret. General Wesley K. Clark, former Supreme Allied Commander of NATO Europe. The panelists spoke at length about international humanitarian law, human rights and the Bush Administration, tying each to President Obama’s foreign policy and national security framework.
Two very different, although not mutually exclusive, perspectives on President Obama were developed throughout the day. The first President Obama was depicted by Lederman and, to some extent, Ret. General Clark, describing President Obama’s use of drones against terrorists as responsible and restrained. They maintained that President Obama has only used weaponized drones in specific armed conflicts, restricting their use under the Presidential Policy Guidance (PPG) and maintaining the strikes’ legality in terms of international and domestic law. The other President Obama cut a darker figure, described by British attorney and human rights expert Alex Moorhead as a continuation of the Bush Administration’s secrecy and disregard for human rights. Moorehead chastised President Obama’s drone policies as blurring the lines between war and peace, setting dangerous precedents for drone strikes to be unrestricted in terms of geography and temporal scope.
Despite the two characterizations of President Obama, nearly all the panelists agreed on one thing: President Obama’s current drone policies must be amended by his successor. Most of the panelists also concurred that a Congressional oversight committee on drone use would perform an adequate check on presidential power. Moorhead went further, supporting the concretization of PPG into actual law, rather than just policy. Currently, the PPG will only act as a guide for future administrations and can be easily ignored or changed, whereas making it law would codify restrictions on future presidents’ drone use. President Obama’s drone legacy has now moved beyond his control. President-elect Trump must implement Congressional oversight and support new domestic laws restricting the use of weaponized drones to armed conflicts in specific countries for limited periods of time. These steps would protect a positive legacy for President Obama’s drone program, keeping executive power restrained.
Both the Bush and Obama Administrations have pursued counterterrorism policies that are designed to keep Americans safe. Weaponized drone use by the president is governed by two legal frameworks: international humanitarian law (IHL) and domestic statutes. IHL, also known as the Law of War or the Law of Armed Conflict, legalizes the killing of enemy combatants in an armed conflict. Cardozo Law Professor Deborah Pearlstein specified that killing as a first resort is only legitimate in this context. The classification of terrorists under IHL is key to placing limitations on drone strikes, as some argue that, as “unlawful combatants”, IHL does not apply to terrorists. Pearlstein laid the basic foundation of how terrorists fit into IHL, explaining that conflicts between state and non-state actors are called non-international armed conflicts, or NIACs. Both President Bush and President Obama were able to define and characterize American conflict with terrorist groups through a global NIAC paradigm, controlling the story around its interaction with relatively new legal frameworks and, crucially, new technology. The lack of accountability and transparency regarding drone strikes has kept government policy hidden from American citizens, while rapidly developing technology has kept it from being restricted by domestic legislation or international law. Although the U.S. conflict with Al Qaeda, and now ISIS, seems to fit into the legal NIAC framework, the U.S. insistence on a global NIAC makes U.S. drone strike capabilities dangerously unrestricted in terms of location and time period, leaving questions concerning a timeline for the end of the war on terror and its current global reach unanswered. Pearlstein also argued that as the reach of IHL grows, supplanting domestic criminal law in more situations, the space for human rights law shrinks due to the further enabling and legitimizing of state power over individuals. President Obama’s persistent use of weaponized drones has set dangerous precedents for future administrations and other national governments that may support more extreme use.
Not all the panelists agreed that President Obama has continued the global NIAC against terrorist groups, and used the PPG as a specific example of his restraint. Conor Friedersdorf of The Atlantic stated that drone use is deliberative and discriminate, meaning it can pick out targets with little or no collateral damage. He and Lederman assert that the PPG does enhance these restrictions, setting barriers that further regulate the strikes. While the panelists agreed that the publishing of the PPG improved transparency within the Obama Administration, Moorehead focused on its limitations as a policy guideline, rather than domestic law. President-elect Trump could–and likely will–reject the PPG completely and follow his own interpretations of IHL and domestic law. Pearlstein also argued that transparency is less important than the lack of legal and political accountability. She emphasized the significance of scrutinizing the justifications for using weaponized drones in areas where legitimate and capable government does exist, such as Pakistan.
The creation of a Congressional oversight committee that monitors drone strikes and proposes legislation restricting the use of weaponized drones would create a necessary check on executive power. It would also allow Congress to contribute to the debate concerning the legality of weaponized drone usage outside of traditional battlefields and in sovereign states like Pakistan. Although President-elect Trump will likely reject any transfer of power to Congress, allowing greater congressional oversight would ensure respect for human rights and potentially spread the negative political ramifications of strikes with heavy civilian casualties and those targeting American citizens. A congressional oversight committee is a critical step towards reining in America’s weaponized drone usage. President Obama and other Commanders-in-Chief prefer drone strikes because they pose no risk to the soldiers involved, meaning the political risks of these killings are also lessened. This can incentivize leaders to use deadly force more frequently, an executive power that must be checked immediately. President-elect Trump must also support the codification of the PPG into domestic law, permanently restricting weaponized drone use and cementing a drone legacy of restraint and responsibility. The creation of checks and shared responsibility with respect to weaponized drone use may lead to political gains for both the president and Congress, while also creating spaces for human rights and legal weapons use. President Obama’s drone legacy depends on it.
America’s ban on stem cell research in the early 2000’s opened up opportunities for other countries to advance in the field at the US’s expense. In August 9, 2001, President George W. Bush signed an executive order prohibiting the use of federal funding towards embryonic stem cell lines. Because these cells could only be harvested from unborn embryos, this field of research provoked political and ethical controversy. This not only prevented stem cell research from progressing, but also pushed American researchers to move their efforts overseas. By 2006, America fell behind Israel as the world’s leader in the field of regenerative medicine. Unlike the US, Israel owes its technological advancement to its government’s support of stem cell research. Eight years later, President Obama overturned this ban, citing that “these tiny cells may have the potential to help us understand, and possibly cure, some of our most devastating diseases.” Since then, America has refocused its attention towards advancing its domestic stem cell research.
Medical breakthroughs in stem cell therapy can relieve financial burdens and save lives. Embryonic stem cells have the ability to differentiate into any cell type, making them useful in replacing damaged cells caused by chronic, incurable diseases. For example, Alzheimer’s disease, a neurodegenerative illness that degrades cognitive function, is currently the 6th leading cause of death in the United States. Every year, Alzheimer’s and other forms of dementia cost the federal government upwards of two hundred billion dollars. According to Dr. Huntington Potter, a neurobiologist at the University of Colorado School of Medicine, an increase in the number of Alzheimer’s patients will lead to the bankruptcy of both Medicare and Medicaid. Diseases like Alzheimer’s continue to cost the federal government money and our country its citizens. Progress in stem cell therapy provides a hopeful solution to a very costly and difficult problem.
Following the 2001 American stem cell ban, Israel, with the help of its supportive government, emerged as a world leader in stem cell research. Unlike the United States, Israel’s government and law fully supports the usage and research of embryonic stem cells, considering it a “mitzvah”, or blessing, to its people. Without ethical and political constraints, Israel flourished in the field. In a 2013 Euro Stem Cell Report on trends, Israel ranked the highest in relative activity, with over 5 times the world activity level in adult stem cell and 2.55 times the world activity level in embryonic stem cell research. Israel’s problem, however, lies in its lack of funding. Dr. Merchav, an Israeli stem cell consultant, believes that the greatest barrier to Israeli advancement is its funding limitations. Being a small state, Israel does not possess the funding capabilities compared to that of a larger state, like the US. Despite its funding issues, Israel’s success and commitment to furthering stem cell therapy has attracted cross-border partnerships with the UK as well as a state funded program in California.
Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert and British Prime Minister Gordon Brown signed a joint declaration in 2008 to establish the Britain-Israel Research and Academic Exchange Partnership (BIRAX). Over eight years this program has completed more than ten joint research projects and has been renewed earlier this year. Israel’s Science Ministry and California’s Institute for Regenerative Medicine (CIRM) finalized its joint research agreement with Israel in February of this year. This agreement is the first of its kind; CIRM brings together the two states’ most talented scientists and advances medical treatment for Diabetes, Alzheimer’s and HIV-AIDS. Cross-border partnerships help alleviate the financial burden for research and clinical trials. Israel’s success in cross-border research and development partnerships with the UK and California serves as a model for future negotiations with the United States.
While Israel has expanded its stem cell research globally through bilateral R&D agreements, the United States has adopted a more isolationist policy, meaning that much of its research remains within its borders. Currently, at about 30%, the US ranks among the lowest in stem cell research papers co-authored with another country per year. On the other hand, Israeli stem cell research ranks as one of the highest, collaborating with other countries’ scientists about 70% of the time. While Americans conduct the highest number of clinical stem cell trials compared to other countries, cooperation across states is limited and not every trial produces significant results. Although CIRM’s partnership with Israel serves as a breakthrough in the American stem cell community, the program is funded by state governments and therefore lacks resources that a unified federal government could otherwise provide. According to David Siegel, the consul general of Israel, a stronger partnership between the United States and Israel allows for quicker FDA approval. This could mean more efficient clinical trials and a quicker turnaround time for approval of new stem cell treatments.
Funding stem cell research and collaborating across borders is an investment for the future. According to the 2013 World Stem Cell Summit, expanding networks and facilitating the transfer of knowledge across countries will further clinical trials more quickly and efficiently. For decades, the United States has served as the the model and standard for modern research and development. Collaborating with Israel would expedite the research process and bring relief to people at home and abroad. Before American stem cell research can expand, our country must first educate the electorate on the benefits of regenerative medicine so that a cohesive, bipartisan stem cell agenda can be made. The health of our affected citizens is not a partisan or negotiable issue. Progress in stem cells has already brought relief to people suffering from leukemia and multiple sclerosis, saving the federal government billions of dollars. With an informed and willing constituency, American politicians can push for and form cross-border research and development agreements. Only then can we hope to extend the field of stem cell research from a possibility to a reality.