Those Unilateralist Anti-Internationalist Democrats

How strange it is that the U.S. presidential elections have flipped the usual internationalist/anti-internationalist rhetoric. In his latest speech, Republican candidate Sen. John McCain knocked both of his potential Democratic opponents for their pledge to threaten U.S. withdrawal from the international trade treaty.

I will leave it to my opponent to argue that we should abrogate trade treaties, and pretend the global economy will go away and Americans can secure our future by trading and investing only among ourselves. We will campaign in favor of seizing the opportunities presented by the growth of free markets throughout the world, helping displaced workers acquire new and lasting employment and educating our children to prepare them for the new economic realities by giving parents choices about their children’s education they do not have now.

The casual way that progressives and Democrats have accepted the Clinton/Obama threat to withdraw from NAFTA reminds us that there are few internationalists for the sake of internationalism. Where treaties damage U.S. interests, Democratic presidential candidates are willing to unilaterally abrogate such treaties (and it really works as a vote-getting scheme in places like Ohio). This seems perfectly appropriate to me, assuming such candidates really believe such treaties injure the national interest. But if that is so, it seems equally appropriate for Republicans to withdraw or abrogate Kyoto or the ICC. The disagreement between the parties is really over pure policy. There is, I think, a vanishingly small political constituency in favor of joining international treaties just for the sake of being good internationalists.