McCain Seems to Advocate a Less Arrogant, Unilateral Foreign Policy
This is good news. I mean, it's a certainty that our next president will adopt a less arrogant, divisive and unilateralist foreign policy than that of this administration. But it's very good news that McCain is emphasizing the point. Let's hope he sticks with it and doesn't get Huckabeed (he himself being one of the offenders there). This will not endear him to the right, of course. But you might say that it's a win-win for liberals: it is both evidence that McCain might be a better president than they think, and something that will decrease his support on the hard right. Since I think McCain could be a fairly good president if he'd pry himself away from Bush's policies, this is particularly good news in my eyes.
This is good news. I mean, it's a certainty that our next president will adopt a less arrogant, divisive and unilateralist foreign policy than that of this administration. But it's very good news that McCain is emphasizing the point. Let's hope he sticks with it and doesn't get Huckabeed (he himself being one of the offenders there). This will not endear him to the right, of course. But you might say that it's a win-win for liberals: it is both evidence that McCain might be a better president than they think, and something that will decrease his support on the hard right. Since I think McCain could be a fairly good president if he'd pry himself away from Bush's policies, this is particularly good news in my eyes.
posted by Winston Smith at
11:47 AM
3 Comments:
Dunno. Could be good news, but it seems more like McCain trying to have it both ways. If "contrarian loyalist" is not an oxymoron, I don't know what the word means. McCain's committed to the war in Iraq without clear criteria even for going or staying. That appeals to the Republican base, particularly the bully wing that he hails from.
But he's making nice with the rest of the world, and no doubt that is good. Of course, the problem with it is that Duhbya himself has lately tried the soft sell, too, and it hasn't really helped, given the history of the Bushists.
I would guess that our allies would need more winning over from a Bush inheritor than from a Democrat, but even a Democrat will have some serious work to do. Maybe if McCain wins, he'll immediately segue away from his base and triangulate the domestic side of international relations. It might happen.
Two things that make me skeptical, however, are the lock-step conformity of Republican conservatism. McCain is reputed to be a maverick, and he has bucked the Senate leadership in the past, but if he's President he will really need their votes. I think he'll be more doctrinaire rather than less.
The other thing, of course, is Duhbya's own pre-election characterization of his foreign policy as modest and collaborative, with no nation-building attempts. Oops!
Then again, I'm not that optimistic about the Democrats extracting us from Iraq either. Obama's really the only hope on that score, and even he is probably going to be tempted by those shiny new permanent bases.
I just don't understand how you can be so hopeful about McCain when he has such a long record of being a huge advocate for American militarism. Sure, now that he's the nominee he gave a speech about hating war and seeking international collaboration, but over his entire career, he's urged military action against practically every country out there.
He called for a "rogue state rollback" program when he was running in 2000. He's the foremost advocate for massively increasing defense spending. He's always criticized Bush for not sending enough troops to Iraq. He wants Bush to get "tougher" on China and Russia. Of all the candidates, he still seems to think that the US military can solve all problems by going in and smashing stuff.
Compare his "I detest war" comments with his "bomb iran" performance. Which is more likely to be his true character?
Given his record, I cannot understand why anyone would think the former is the "real" McCain.
[McCain has] urged military action against practically every country out there.
Is that true? And I don't mean to challenge the hyperbole here, which is OK. War is a serious thing, and a bit of skepticism and alarm is always in order. [I even think Goldwater had the "Daisy" ad coming, with his careless talk of using tactical nukes in Vietnam.]
But I mean, what does McCain want to invade or bomb? [We will take Iran as a joke, right? Jokes are good, to put the other fellow back on his heels, especially when he's a real jerk.]
He called for a "rogue state rollback" program when he was running in 2000.
Sounds good to me. Reagan had the same posture against the bad guys of the world, altho he actually invaded very few countries. Does anyone have the facts about Reagan's interventions vs. Clinton's? Combat deaths, etc. My first impression is there's little difference.
Compare his "I detest war" comments with his "bomb Iran" performance. Which is more likely to be his true character?
"I detest war" goes back to 1995 or so. Thank you, Think Progress, which I think is offered as a primary source around here on occasion. [They embarrassed themselves bigtime with their leap off the cliff trying to round up a stupid little "gotcha" on McCain.]
But perhaps he doesn't mean it.
Of all the candidates, he still seems to think that the US military can solve all problems by going in and smashing stuff.
What's next on his list? Russia? The ChiComs? Hugo Chavez? Albania? Haiti, just to stay in practice?
Enquiring minds want to know, dude.
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home