James Poulos alerted me last week to a provocative piece his fine new outfit Culture11 published, and I’ve been meaning to write about it ever since. Indeed, I still intend to.

In the meantime, however, Andrew Sullivan praised the piece as an attempt to rebuild “a conservative foreign policy” in the wake of Bush/Cheney and in the face of the perilous promise of McCain. If by “conservative”, Andrew meant “not reckless”, then yes, I agree: the above-mentioned piece (by Nick Gvosdev, formerly of The National Interest) is a good place to start the discussion.

But the term “conservative” grates on my ear when applied to foreign policy much like it rankles when Matt Yglesias bandies about a “progressive” agenda for foreign affairs. Quite simply put, such categories do not exist in any meaningful way. There’s a tradition of skeptical isolationism in American foreign policy, which I’d argue Gvosdev’s piece flirts with. And there’s a tradition that seeks to keep America engaged in the world. Among the latter branch, you’ll find realists, liberal internationalists, neoconservatives (or “assertive nationalists”), and a whole bevy of people who fall somewhere in between those three large categories.

Claims for “progressive” or “conservative” foreign policy, to my ear at least, seem to be attempts at capturing one or more of the above traditions in the service of some larger organizing political movement. As such, they are misleading and are not welcome. Neither party, nor either “political persuasion”, has had a monopoly on wisdom or on folly when it comes to these things. Given the enormous challenges we face, finding a “conservative” or “progressive” foreign policy is counter-productive. We should be concentrating on finding the best solutions, period.

As usual, Reihan is on to something:

The Palin pick is the politicial equivalent of bear-baiting. Yes, ridiculing Palin as a hick and a rube, and devaluing her experience, comes naturally to the kind of people who take Barack Obama seriously as a presidential candidate. Philip Gourevitch discussed the parallels between Palin and Obama — but of course Palin is in many respects the cultural and stylistic opposite of Obama. Obama speaks to the highest aspirations and self-conceptions of a certain kind of urban liberal. Palin, in contrast, speaks to the highest aspirations and self-conceptions of a different set of Americans. That’s why insults and ridicule are counter-productive for Democrats. Why? Because the kind of Americans inclined to like Obama, without the aid of Joe Biden or free factory-reviving supercars, will never vote for a Republican. The kind of Americans inclined to like Palin might vote for a Democrat, particularly this year.

There are at least four pitfalls for Democrats in Palin’s biography: 1) The “experience” charge. As Sonny has explained better than I could, it invites Obamaphiles to give in to their temptation to mock flyover country (not a good strategy to win those Western battleground states, is it?). But this charge is at least covered over by a patina of respectability. The other charges, not so much: 2) The “pandering” charge. To criticize McCain for picking this woman, as if just any woman would do to bring in woman voters, may only serve to remind Hillary’s disgruntled supporters that Obama himself could have chosen a (supposedly) eminently qualified woman but chose not to. 3) The “her family’s too young and too big for her to be VP” charge. Probably not the kind of argument that should be made by a party that has had trouble winning over married voters with children. 4) The “Alaskan secessionist” charge. Admittedly it’s a bizarre one, but not so strange that the Times didn’t see it as fit to print. And as for candidates with associations to fringe organizations, well, at least the Alaskan Independence Party hasn’t set off any bombs.

But that said, I have to part company with the conservatives who are thrilled with the Palin pick and count myself with Peggy Noonan, raw and uncut. The fact that Obama is also inexperienced doesn’t make McCain’s choice of an inexperienced running-mate any less troubling.

UPDATE: I forgot to add that #3 above isn’t a charge that will endear Obama to feminists, either.