Daily Kos: US Foreign policy: Coke-Republicans vs Pepsi-Democrats?
The hubris of the Bush/Cheney administration has brought such a maelstrom of failures, corruption and crimes, it has lead the world so close to a global disaster (it could still happen...) that, in comparison, any other administration will look like angels come on earth to save us. But I don't believe in angels.While I reasonably (optimistically?) trust the Democrats for restoring democracy and civil liberties, implementing (slightly) more responsible socio-economic policies and promoting environmental awareness within the United States, I still wonder if they will bring any change to the United States foreign policy doctrine. So far, I have little hope.My doubts have been nurtured by Tony Smith's editorial in the March 11 issue of the Washington Post
While I reasonably (optimistically?) trust the Democrats for restoring democracy and civil liberties, implementing (slightly) more responsible socio-economic policies and promoting environmental awareness within the United States, I still wonder if they will bring any change to the United States foreign policy doctrine. So far, I have little hope.
My doubts have been nurtured by Tony Smith's editorial in the March 11 issue of the Washington Post
It is a good point that the Democrats don't seem to have agreed on what position America should take in the world, but it is an overstatement to say that they are not different from the Bush-Cheney doctrine.
Bush-Cheney embody the neo-conservative belief that US power is omnipotent and the US military can be used globally without restraint. This has led to a belief that the US can extend its military resources extensively abroad without concern for failure. This leads people like McCain to think we can stay in Iraq 100 years, maintain a war in Afghanistan, attack Iran, and possibly maintain "other wars" as well.
The Democrats seem to have a better grip on the reality that US power has its limits. They accept that unilateral action is acceptable in the face of imminent danger, but also realize that for the problems of today cannot be solved by one country alone. They recognize that record defense budgets (save WWII era) are not sustainable (although there has been some debate about whether Dems will actually decrease budgets at AR recently). They seem more open to talking with countries like Iran, where the Bush administration has been recalcitrant.
These seem like major differences from the Bush-Cheney years--US "hubris" will decline if a Democrat is elected president. Kyle Atwell
