The Nation Asks 'Why Can't Republican's Be More Like Nixon?'

This week's editorial from the Nation is a real doozy. Here's how it starts:

Once upon a time, Republicans believed in diplomacy. They spoke with enemies. Recall Richard Nixon: As President, he negotiated with the Soviets, the Chinese and the North Vietnamese, who were shooting at US troops at the time. Nowadays, the Bush Administration too often dismisses diplomacy and, when it does, is cheered on by neoconservatives and conservatives who misguidedly equate communication with weakness.

Ah, yes...why can't Republicans today be more like Nixon? Well, conservatives at the time were none too thrilled about Nixon's trip to China. Barry Goldwater famously quipped ''Well, if Nixon likes China so much, let him stay there.'' And, of course, Goldwater also called Nixon "the most dishonest individual I have ever met in my life." So forgive today's conservatives if they don't look to the Nixon presidency for guidance on this particular question.

The editorial goes on to say that "Pelosi, who affirmed US policy toward Syria in her conversation with Assad, was merely following the advice of the bipartisan Iraq Study Group..." The Iraq Study Group did recommend engagement with Syria and Iraq, but not by Congress. And the ISG also recommended a surge of U.S. forces into Iraq if ground commanders deemed it necessary--they have, though the editors at the Nation are unlikely to support that recommendation.

They go on:

And for the moment--much to the consternation of conservatives--it is giving diplomacy a chance on North Korea. But when it comes to the big picture, the Administration still prefers bullying and threats of military action to the hard work of talking and negotiating. Iran's defiant announcement that it has begun enriching uranium on an industrial scale shows that this approach hasn't paid off.

Conservative consternation seems entirely appropriate given that the February 13 agreement with the DPRK already appears to be falling apart--the North Koreans appear unlikely even to meet the first deadline for shutting down their main nuclear reactor. And no one on the right thinks that mere bullying and threats will prevent the Iranians from moving forward with their nuclear program, and no one on the left can seriously think that direct diplomacy with Iran will either. The Iranians are determined to build a bomb. International sanctions might offer a third way, but not without Russian and Chinese support--an unlikely development, especially if the United States pursues a policy of engagement rather than isolation.

The editors further look to the behavior of the British government in the recent hostage crisis as an example for Bush and his "cowboy allies":

In the British-Iranian face-off, Prime Minister Tony Blair achieved the release of the British hostages without resorting to threats or force. Yet the big-stick crowd in Washington derided Blair.

The British brought their soldiers home, but only after Blair issued a vague threat about a 48 hour deadline. To assume that a credible threat of the use of force didn't play a significant part in their release is naive. And yes, conservatives did a little deriding--Americans have been around that block before. There would have been no humble attempts at diplomacy if "Iranian military vessels surrounded an American ship instead of a British one"--one Carter administration was enough for us cowboys.

And finally:

Bush does not believe in the power of negotiation and compromise--as evidenced even by his dealings with Congressional Democrats.

Which Congressional Democrats are looking to compromise? Certainly not the leadership, who have passed around a memo saying that the party "must not yeid" to the White House.