Welcome to European Tribune. It's gone a bit quiet around here these days, but it's still going.

Breakdown of the American multi-party system - a slip towards dictatorship?

by vladimir Tue Dec 11th, 2007 at 11:19:35 AM EST

I urge you to read Hillary Clinton's international political agenda in a paper published in Foreign Affairs. (Security and Opportunity for the Twenty-first Century. Foreign Affairs, November/December, 2007). The article is fairly critical of a number of aspects of the current administration.
Change in US foreign politics? Forget it. The criticism directed at the current Administration by Hillary shows that there are no fundamental changes in Washington's global policy to be expected in the foreseeable future.
If elected, Hillary intends to continue with efforts to subdue Iraq. Her criticisms of Bush for the US military's involvement in Iraq should not be taken seriously. Bush also criticized Bill Clinton for the Yugoslav wars while he was a presidential contender. This is a game played often by the US Republicans and Democrats. In case Hillary makes it to the White House in 2008, she intends to complete the process of partitioning Iraq into three minor pseudo-independent states. Hillary's plans for Iraq and the withdrawal of the US troops from the country are immediately offset by the statement that «...we will have to replenish American power by getting out of Iraq, rebuilding our military, and developing a much broader arsenal of tools in the fight against terrorism». Same reasoning as that of Bush. We should expect to see « surgical strikes » against Al-Qaeda (a truly universal pretext) and some other terrorist groups, whose names are not hard to invent no matter what country is being dealt with. US military bases will remain in the Iraqi Kurdistan even after their withdrawal from the southern and central parts of Iraq. Bush is already creating the infrastructure for maintaining US troops in Kurdistan on a long-term basis.
Minor differences exist between Hillary's and Bush's approaches to building up the US military might. For example, she says: «... I will work to expand and modernize the military ... the Bush Administration has undermined this goal by focusing obsessively on expensive and unproven missile defense technology... ».
Seeking international consensus is not considered by Hillary. The plan is to pursue total and overwhelming US military and technological superiority. According to Hillary, Bush's major failure is that he hasn't done a sufficiently good job of this. Democratic controlled Congress recently allocated an extra $100 mln to create a space shuttle with a strike capability, which can hit targets from space orbit at distances over 16,500 km.
Hillary also pledges to raise the efficiency of the US intelligence community, to turn it into «a clandestine service that is out on the street, not sitting behind desks». Obviously, this refers to a focus on the operations abroad. Reagarding Iran, the policy is the same as that of the current Administration.
Regarding Russia, Hillary's opinion is that Moscow should support Washington's policy - stressing that this is of Russia's interest too.


Display:
Rec'd on your title alone.  :)  

But can you put some links and quotes in this, please?  

I myself have been meaning to do something about the various US pres. candidates' positions on Russia (suspect there will be little variation, since Buchanan isn't running...)  But things like feeling like crap and ice storms have kept me away from the computer...

"Pretending that you already know the answer when you don't is not actually very helpful." ~Migeru.

by poemless on Tue Dec 11th, 2007 at 11:31:20 AM EST
To be read alongside


We have met the enemy, and he is us — Pogo
by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Tue Dec 11th, 2007 at 11:45:54 AM EST
I don't think you're gonna get much disagreement here. I think there is general dismay that, whilst the American public is way over 60% in favour of getting the heck out of Iraq, the US political establishment is still broadly supportive of the adventure.

Hilary has no intention of leaving Iraq. I believe she intends to leave about 80,000 troops there in the 6 big mega-bases to ensure rapid response to any threat to "America's" oil supply. Obama isn't much better either.

Hilary is effectively a republican-lite, an instinctive appeaser of all right wing ideologies. she has no progressive values whatsoever.

I think the recent explosions on Kos from Therisnospoon and Hunter demonstrate that the netroots are beginning to realise there is more to this game of politics than electing people with a (D) after their name.

keep to the Fen Causeway

by Helen (lareinagal at yahoo dot co dot uk) on Tue Dec 11th, 2007 at 01:09:52 PM EST
I doubt we'll ever have suspended elections in the US, or even election rigging that is anything worse than what we see today, where disenfranchisement of various sorts puts the democrats in about a 2% hole before the voting begins in presidential elections.

This is because there are other (importantly) significantly less internally destabilizing ways to remove the threat of democracy, and the institutional structure that (nearly) enforces the two party system is just one example. Soft media control is another - a politician like Sarko isn't getting elected in left-leaning country like France without it.

The American public is significantly to the left of both parties. We don't get to vote on the military budget, for example, and for good reason - if you poll people that identify as republican and ask what % of their tax dollars should go to the military, you're going to get an average number that is far beneath current allocation (around 50%). When it comes to education budgets, though, voting is most definitely allowed - growing school districts generally have to resort to bond measures to build schools, and by law, they can only be approved by a public vote.

If you can convince the public that voting is the highest socially acceptable level of civic participation, as this country has done with its citizens, cynicism and resignation are the inevitable result when staring up at those static, elite controlled institutions.

you are the media you consume.

by MillMan (millguy at gmail) on Tue Dec 11th, 2007 at 03:05:42 PM EST
Exactly.  The ruling "oiligarchy" would never stoop to something so anathemic to amurka, and they are far too sophisticated.  Barring some unforeseen calamity, like "a new Pearl Harbor."  Or barring complete madness by the current occupants, which remains something not to be taken lightly.  The current consolidation of power seems to be working quite effectively.

MillMan, i liked the way you described the 2% disenfranchisement, but remember it gives real power when focused on key states in the electoral system.

Anybody remember the "Yankee and Cowboy War" from the late 60's and 70's?

"Life shrinks or expands in proportion to one's courage." - Ana´s Nin

by Crazy Horse on Fri Dec 14th, 2007 at 04:21:36 PM EST
[ Parent ]
The US empire was always a bipartisan enterprise.

That's why the Iraq war is a "blunder" not a war crime.
That's why there won't be impeachment hearings.
In every major crime of the Bush administration, offensive war, illegal surveillance and torture leading Democrats were fully complicit.

That's why they blame the victims:

Our troops did the job they were asked to do. They got rid of Saddam Hussein. They conducted the search for weapons of mass destruction. They gave the Iraqi people a chance for elections and to have a government. It is the Iraqis who have failed to take advantage of that opportunity. -- Hillary Clinton, New Hampshire Democratic Presidential Candidates Debate, June 3, 2007--http://powerofnarrative.blogspot.com/2007/06/some-races-are-just-not-as-good-as.html
by generic on Tue Dec 18th, 2007 at 08:33:41 AM EST
long live generic !
by vladimir on Tue Dec 18th, 2007 at 01:08:49 PM EST
[ Parent ]


Display:
Go to: [ European Tribune Homepage : Top of page : Top of comments ]