AS ROVE LICKED HIS CHOPS:

In the steps of JQA and FDR (Michael Barone, March 1, 2004, Jewish World Review)

George W. Bush has made as bold a transformation in American foreign policy as John Quincy Adams and Franklin D. Roosevelt did in their times. That is the thesis of Yale historian John Lewis Gaddis's just-published Surprise, Security, and the American Experience.

Each leader responded to an attack on American soil with an utterly changed foreign policy, which in the first two cases remained operative for decades. After the British attacked Washington in 1814, Adams as secretary of state built a foreign policy based on pre-emption (against failing colonial powers and adjacent Indians), unilateralism (no foreign alliances), and hegemony (in the Western Hemisphere: the Monroe Doctrine). After the Japanese attacked Pearl Harbor in 1941, Roosevelt and his successors built a foreign policy based on multilateralism (others did most of the fighting), legalism (the United Nations), and deterrence (of the Soviet Union).

After the September 11 attacks, Bush responded much as Adams had, with pre-emption (fanatic nonstate enemies can't be deterred), unilateralism (or at least a willingness to go it alone when necessary), and hegemony (worldwide this time). In Gaddis's view, it was a rational response, seriously explained in the 2002 National Security Strategy, though not always carried out flawlessly. [...]

Walter Russell Mead of the Council on Foreign Relations has argued that any Democratic president would find himself obliged to follow much the same foreign policy as Bush, despite campaign rhetoric. There may be something to that. And Bush's policy is not as unilateral as Kerry says. The National Security Statement is full of statements about the desirability of acting multilaterally when possible, and, as Bush pointed out in his State of the Union address, we have 34 allies working with us in Iraq.

But Kerry's council speech does show an inclination to tie down the United States. And the perceptions of hostile foreign leaders of an American president's determination do make a difference. Muammar Qadhafi decided to give up his nuclear weapons program lest Bush pursue him to a spider hole in the desert. Would he have made the same decision if John Kerry were about to take the oath of office? Bush's determination to act against threats is not in doubt. Kerry's is.

Mr. Kerry gave an interview to NPR's Day to Day this afternoon. He was asked about four issues and each answer was sillier than the one before.

(Q) Who's he considering for VP?

(A) He hasn't given it any thought yet.

Yeah, right.

(Q) He criticized the Bush policy on Haiti yesterday--what would he have done differently?

(A) Intervened sooner. Backed Aristide because he was an elected leader. Mediated a settlement between Aristide & insurgents.

One would first note that he doesn't even mention Haiti on his website, but, propping up a government against insurgents? Did he learn anything in Vietnam?

(Q) Iraq just adopted a constitution, but he voted against the supplemental, does he support Iraq?

(A) He offered an amendment that would have raised taxes by $87 billion to pay for the supplemental, but couldn't support increasing the deficit.

Tax hikes? We thought he was a disciiple of Michael Dukakis, not Walter Mondale.

(Q) Can he explain his personal opposition to gay marriage?

(A) His personal faith requires that marriage be only between a man and a woman, but he supports all spousal rights for gay couples. Besides, marriage is just a term and it doesn't matter what we call couples.

Then why not call it marriage?

Posted by Orrin Judd at March 1, 2004 1:20 PM