When principle isn't enough ...

This column will not make the moral case for intervention in Darfur. That column has already been written, by me and by others, to little practical effect. This is a column for the realists, the pragmatists, the political strategists. This is a column for those who justifiably wonder if it is "politically advisable" for either party to take on the Murderers of Khartoum.

Never mind that this isn't the question that "should" matter. We don't have the luxury of "should." We've tried moralizing; it's time for another tack.

So here's my thoroughly amoral thesis: The Democratic party can score major political points by relentlessly pushing for concrete steps to end the genocide in Sudan.

The key word is "relentlessly." The strategy will work only if Democrats are willing to make enforcement of the U.N. Genocide Convention — in Darfur and elsewhere — the signature plank in the party's foreign policy platform. Repetition is essential. The effort will yield no political gain if it is sustained for one, two, three news cycles. The party has to show itself capable of a spectacular doggedness that transcends and remakes the news cycle. To create the hoped-for sensation, the campaign must exhibit an element of daring: congressional Democrats would have to stake their chances in the '06 midterms on their commitment to Darfur.

Specifically, here's what I have in mind: the Democratic leadership could introduce legislation instructing the President to press the Security Council for a Chapter VII intervention in Sudan. The resolution must be reintroduced daily, without fail, until an adequate international peacekeeping force — with a mandate to protect civilians — is on the ground.

I'm aware that conventional wisdom deems the "genocide issue" a political dead-end. Even supposing that we could educate a solid mass of Americans to locate Darfur on a map (an iffy supposition), this hardly seems like an opportune moment to be talking about military action against an Arab government. Americans are war-weary. We suspect that we are already stretched too thin to take care of our own. We are understandably anxious about taking the reigns of a global police force. We are ambivalent about the processes and institutions of international law and justice. We are focused on mitigating the threat of terrorism and rebuilding New Orleans. So why push this now, when there is so much else on our plate?

These may all be good (strategic) reasons for the party in power to shy away from an aggressive commitment to Darfur. After all, the current administration has little incentive to "prove" its willingness to deploy American influence and might. On the contrary, the powers that be are now eager to reassure voters that Iraq is not the beginning of an endless series of foreign entanglements.

Democrats, however, face an entirely different problem of perception. If there is anything less politically appealing than an overambitious foreign policy, it's a foreign policy with no ambition at all. And many voters are beginning to conclude that Democrats envision no real leadership role for the United States in global affairs. Fairly or unfairly, these voters think of Democrats as people who assume that America is always wrong and the rest of the world is always right.

A gutsy commitment to finding a remedy for Darfur could effectively counteract these (mis?)perceptions. This is a chance for Democrats to show that they, too, are willing to flex the nation's diplomatic and military muscle. It's an occasion for Democrats to affirm that the United States is not forever damned by its previous mistakes — that not every American-led intervention is by definition corrupt and imperialistic. Darfur presents a unique chance for Democrats to take the initiative, frame the debate, recapture the foreign policy agenda.

Consider the two policy recommendations most commonly associated with the Democratic party: repeal of the Bush tax cut and withdrawal from Iraq. Even if voters find one or both of these proposals appealing, the fact remains that the Democratic plan is all about undoing things that Republicans have done. This may seem like a perfectly reasonable starting point for an opposition party, but inspiring political programs are not made of deconstructive verbs like "repeal" and "withdraw." Democrats need to address foreign policy proactively and on their own terms — not just in reaction to the President. If only for strictly strategic reasons, Democrats must talk about doing as much as they talk about undoing.

I hope — and prefer to believe — that Democrats in Congress understand the moral imperative to rescue the people of Darfur. But if that's not quite enough, we can still hope that party strategists won't squander this golden political opportunity. Jeremy Golubcow-Teglasi is a religion major from Potomac, Md. He can be reached at golubcow@princeton.edu.