Monday, October 16th 2006
What’s New
Kerry Eskenas has a new article on America’s foreign policy:
It appears to have become a favorite pastime of the Democratic Party to pin the blame on President Bush for every injustice and all of the suffering that occurs in the world. It’s incredible to watch liberals speak with a straight face as they proclaim that the source of everything that is wrong in the world is not in the perpetrators themselves but is instead a consequence of the Bush administration. As time has gone on, this attitude has become crystallized in the words of prominent Democratic leaders and liberal interest groups…
It is time for the Democrats to acknowledge that the United States cannot be expected to solve all of the world’s problems. As a superpower, it is true that the United States has many responsibilities in the world. But it is irrational to assume that the ultimate blame for all of the world’s problems can be pinned on President Bush…
Check the whole thing.
Allow me to first admit that I didn’t bother to actually click through and read the article because if I put the time in to see the rest of the (almost certainly) wrongheaded things that Kerry had to say, this comment would certainly be even more spiteful and condescending than it is. But from the excerpt above, I have one major disagreement. Kerry seems to fundamentally misunderstand what Democrat’s think.
As someome who spends a lot of time around liberals and reading liberal websites (although by no means exclusively), Democrats don’t think that we should, “pin the blame on President Bush for every injustice and all of the suffering that occurs in the world.”
Instead, we (in the sense that there is a monolithic Democratic “we”) think that Bush is to blame for making almost every single injustice or instance of suffering in the world worse than it would otherwise be without his constant incompetence.
Now if I were feeling ambitious, I would go through a list of some of the major injustices/suffering throughout the world and explain how Bush is making them worse, but I feel in those examples we would simple disagree on the merits of the cases, and I kinda doubt I’ll be convincing you otherwise. And yes, I do have the caveat, that somewhere, somehow, Bush may be doing some good on some minor issue, but it’s kinda outweighed by all the crap he’s doing elsewhere.
Comment by Andy R. — 10/17/2006 @ 2:38 am
It is time for the Democrats to acknowledge that the United States cannot be expected to solve all of the world’s problems.
I couldn’t agree more. My follow-up question is, when will the Republicans adopt this philosophy? Because all the “fixing” they enjoy doing in the Middle East has been seriously fucking the region over.
Comment by Yaman — 10/17/2006 @ 2:31 pm
I agree with Yaman. Non-interventionism was the cornerstone of American foreign policy in the past, and I don’t think that was such a bad thing compared to what we have now. The Democrats might be moderately anti-Iraq War, but anti-interventionists? Far from it. Just take a look at Clinton’s dozens of unnecessary foreign deployments, or the calls for various “humanitarian” interventions all around the world by various Democrats. We have troops stationed in almost every country around the world. There will be no fundamental change to America’s foreign policy when the Democrats take over.
On the other hand, once the Republicans get slaughtered in the next two elections, they will have the opportunity to reinvent themselves. I suggest they look back to the pre-Cold War anti-interventionist Republicans for inspiration. There was a time when Republican and anti-intervention wasn’t a contradiction (even until the 90’s). Like many who jumped onto the neoconservative bandwagon after 9/11 before thinking things through, I now realize that.
Comment by patr — 10/17/2006 @ 3:36 pm
Pat, we are in complete agreement. I think the Republican Party seriously needs to take this opportunity to re-think it’s foreign policy. I have no faith in the Democratic Party to do any better; they’ll have the same interventionist policy and just call it something nice, like “humanitarian.”
Comment by the cw — 10/18/2006 @ 7:39 pm