May 27, 2004
OPPOSITE:
Kerry pitches his global view: In the first of a series of speeches, Kerry seeks to sharpen foreign-policy differences with Bush. (Liz Marlantes, 5/28/04, CS Monitor)
[K]erry and Bush share some key similarities when it comes to their overall approach to foreign policy. Both have clearly asserted that the US does not need a green light from other nations to use force. And while Bush has moved toward Kerry's call for internationalizing the effort in Iraq, Kerry has moved closer to Bush's original wariness of the United Nations, proposing a "high commissioner" to Iraq who could bypass UN bureaucracy.Still, many analysts argue that the overall approach and tone Kerry would bring to US foreign policy would represent a striking contrast with Bush - and could lead to some substantially different results.
"Bush is part of the realist, realpolitik school of foreign policy, that first and foremost showcases America's force," says historian Douglas Brinkley. "Kerry is part of what they used to call the moralist or multilateral school of foreign affairs."
Often, realpolitik is the best approach, Mr. Brinkley adds: During the cold war, for example, both Kennedy and Reagan took tougher stands against the Soviet Union, that ultimately proved successful. "But it is not the best approach when you are trying to get countries to spend billions of dollars in building up a new democratic society."
Kerry's multilateral worldview can be traced to his background: The son of a diplomat, he went to boarding school in Switzerland, and spent time in cities like Paris and Bonn. In the US, his familiarity with European culture has been seen almost as a disadvantage - Republicans have joked that he "looks French," and mocked him in an Austin Powers-style spoof as an "international man of mystery."
But as the US burden in Iraq grows, Americans may increasingly see an advantage in a president who is comfortable negotiating with - and might have more of an opening among - foreign leaders.
Mr. Brinkley could not possibly be more wrong. Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush are nearly messianic in their democratic idealism and stand in stark contrast to the kind of "stability at all costs" that the Realist school espouses.
MORE:
Understanding Evil: As liberals try to sabotage the War on Terror, President Bush, like Reagan before him, boldly faces an unappeasable evil. (Peter Huessy, 5/26/04, FrontPage)
The Bush administration's foreign and national security policy has generated serious opposition here at home and overseas. This is not unlike the reaction to President Reagan's plan to deploy intermediate range missiles in Europe and to modernize our land, sea and air-based nuclear deterrent systems.The demonstrations of the early 1980's throughout Europe, coupled with the push for a nuclear freeze here in America, made it appear as if President Reagan was intent on blowing up the world. Former Carter administration officials were sought on a daily basis to appear on morning, evening and weekend talk shows, warning of impending doom, the collapse of arms control, possible conflict with the Soviet Union, and the deterioration of NATO.
For the intellectual Left in America, Reagan's bold foreign and defense policies were seen as fundamentally representative of a narrow, U.S. interest, reflecting the selfish concerns of the military industrial complex, war planners and DOD officials. In particular, the New York Times, the Washington Post, the New Yorker, and the evening television news shows were unanimous that the US President, an uninformed actor, naive in the ways of the world, could not be trusted with US security policy.The Left hoped that cooler heads in the State Department would convince Reagan, the former California governor, to seek coexistence, not confrontation, with the leaders in Moscow. Critical to this strategy, we were told, was to get the two leaders from the US and the Soviet Union together at a "summit" to freeze our respective nuclear arsenals.
Fast forward twenty years later. In early 2001, the earliest manifestations of the new Bush administration security policy were a speech at the National Defense University where the President outlined the need for missile defenses, an overall counter terrorism strategy, and stronger controls over the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, as well as a strong, robust but reduced and more balanced deterrent force of nuclear weapons.
The reaction mirrored that of 1981. The same media outlets, the same articles, same television commentators, wringing their hands in worry, despairing of a "cowboy" governor from Texas, way over his head in the nuanced, fuzzy liberal world of his opponents.Bush's assertion of US interests, such as defending ourselves from ballistic missiles, or foregoing signing-off on a foolish energy consumption commitment such as called for by the Kyoto Treaty, was universally derided as wrong headed, "unilateral," representative of a "go it alone" policy.
Posted by Orrin Judd at May 27, 2004 6:19 PM
Mr. Brinkley is essentially a Kerry advisor, but never so identified by the mainstream media.
Posted by: Fred Jacobsen (San Fran) at May 27, 2004 6:48 PMReagan was an anomaly in the Republican Party,a genuine conservative populist in a party of Eastern Establishment statists who share many veiws and beliefs with the Democrats.
It's merely a matter of degree,not kind.
Jr.is more like Poppy than many want to admit and his democratic "evangalism" is waning fast.
Orrin Hatch is pushing subjective "hate crime" legislation and Frist wants a whole new A.A. program for med schools.
With friends like these,who needs cancer?
In 10 yrs the Dems may be more conservative than the Repubs have been since '94(last gasp of Reaganism)
Posted by: noone at May 27, 2004 7:17 PMThe Republicans will only ever be as far right as the Democrats force them to be. As the Dems have moved left, the Reps have moved left to stay next to them. Don't make the mistake of confusing the Republicans with an ideologically conservative party. Not only do they not want to be that, but as American conservatives can't agree on what American conservativism looks like, it would be hard to do even if they wanted to.
Posted by: David Cohen at May 27, 2004 7:30 PMI don't mistake the Republicans for any kind of conservatie party.As the "Rockefeller Republicans" used the languege of conservatism to disguise their support for New Deal statism,so they now use it to disguise their support for PoMo Statism(for want of a better phrase)
"American conservatives can't agree on what American conservativism looks like, it would be hard to do even if they wanted to."
But they certainly know what it is NOT and it's not whats coming from the party right now.
"do they not want to be that"
Which is why the party often goes into elections with a demoralized,or at least passive,base.They are always playing catch-up because they tend to dislike their own base nearly as much as the Dems do and rarely bother to hide this during non-election years.Were it not for the war,W would be planning future improvemnts to the Crawford ranch during his immininent future retirement.
Posted by: noone at May 27, 2004 8:17 PMNot only is Brinkley a shill, but he doesn't even know what he is talking about: Kerry is a moralist? Only if you worship at the altar of Daniel Ortega, Hugo Chavez, and Fidel Castro.
Posted by: jim hamlen at May 27, 2004 9:13 PMOf course, Mr Brinkley (good observation Fred on the lack of disclosure) does not subject his claim to any cost-benefit analysis. What must we give up, and what would we get in return? The supposedly popular war in Afghanistan (which, I understand, may have been supported by the Left and by post 9/11, sympathetic Euros) resulted in a lot of talk but very little military and financial contributions (aside from the usual suspects in the Anglo-sphere). Let's say it was Bush, then what about the Clinton years? How much did we give up and how much did we get back? From China, Japan, and Russia in North Korea? From NATO (ex- Britain) in Bosnia? On trade matters? In bringing better oversight (as we and the UK wanted) over the UNSCAM? The list of net loss is long. (Even symbolically, we were kicked out of the human rights committee before Bush came to power.)
But, true enough, there is no President (aside from Al Gore circa 2004) who would feel more comfortable genuflexing to the Euros than John Kerry.
Posted by: MG at May 27, 2004 9:22 PMjim:
Siding with evil still makes you a moralist--you're just on the of the moral questions.
Posted by: oj at May 27, 2004 9:28 PMIn terms of measurement, you are correct. But in terms of definition, no way. To be a moralist is to be, well, moral. Kerry has more in common with Henry Kissinger than he would like to admit.
Posted by: jim hamlen at May 27, 2004 10:56 PMnoone:
If it weren't for the Iraq war, Bush might not even bother to campaign:
* Almost everyone believes that Bush struck the right notes after 9/11
* Afghanistan was a popular war, both domestically and internationally
* The economy is booming
How many incumbents have gotten the boot under those circumstances ?
Posted by: Michael Herdegen at May 27, 2004 11:09 PMReagan was "nearly messianic in [his] democratic idealism" ? His administration made nice with plenty of tinpot dictators out there. That was the price of anticommunism, and may have been worth it, but I wouln't confuse that with "democratic idealism." Can anyone say Iran-Contra?
Just because they're socialists doesn't mean they can't be legitimately elected. In fact, even today I'm not sure we would want free elections in a lot of Arab countries, because some pretty nutty Islamic radicals would have a good shot at winning.
Bush, by contrast, has actually done more for democracy by supporting it even in places where it hurt relationships with autocrats that are nominally our friends. He pushed Musharaf a couple of times, has spoken out against some of the former Soviet Republic strongmen, etc.
Posted by: Brennan at May 28, 2004 12:34 AMMichael Herdegen
You make my points for me:
Absent 9/11,there would have been no notes for Bush to strike and absent 9/11 no popular Afghan invasion(now largelry forgotten by a public overwhelmed by media propaganda of Iraq).
On the economy,depends on what it's like in October,not now,and how the press and Dems spin it.If inflation becomes a big story(and it's here,check prices)Bush could be in trouble there,too.
Nope,without the war,Bush would currently be wildly stroking a dissatisfied base.
Posted by: noone at May 28, 2004 6:08 AMoj:
Touche.
However, the economy during George H. W. Bush's re-election campaign was perceived to be weak, an idea that Bush didn't do enough to change.
noone:
I see.
So, you don't just want to discount the war that Bush had control over, but also the one that he was forced into ?
Absent 9/11, the economy almost certainly would have had an even milder recession, and the recovery would have been further underway by now.
You may dislike the Younger Bush because he's not conservative enough for you, but don't mistake your attitude for the mainstream one.
Most of America is to your left, politically.
>Only if you worship at the altar of Daniel
>Ortega, Hugo Chavez, and Fidel Castro.
The new Holy Trinity of Social Justice.
(Back in the Eighties, the Social Justice Holy Trinity was Marx, Lenin, and Castro.)
"I see.
So, you don't just want to discount the war that Bush had control over, but also the one that he was forced into ?"
Afghanistan is forgotten and we're seeing Abu Ghraib and half meassures,with Powell on his knee's to the U.N. And please don't tell me about this,that or the other,perception is reality and Bush's ratings show the the public beginning to see him as bungling things.
Clearly you don't see at all.
Once again,if not for 9/11,WHAT would George W Bush be campaigning on?
The economy?(open to spin,may or may not be strong in Oct.)
Partial birth abortion?(not nearly as controversial as the media make it out to be,infanticide makes people queasy)
Affirmative action?(rolled on U. Mich case)
Gun control?(limp,at best)
Government spending?(outspending Bill Clinton)
Immigration?(up to 80% want reform,Bush offers amnesty and sparks a rush to the border,costing him support from a number of big money donors and goodwill from the base)
"You may dislike the Younger Bush because he's not conservative enough for you"
Bush isn't very conservative at all,as shown by his record that is currently overshadowed by the War.
"but don't mistake your attitude for the mainstream one."
Nor is your's or OJ's on a number issues,for that matter.There really isn't a "mainstream" attitude right now,we're in a transitional period of history,which you and OJ mistake for an end to history.
Posted by: noone at May 28, 2004 1:25 PM