Reader Posts
« previous | TPM CAFÉ READER POSTS HOME | next »
A slim hope
Why do I think at this point that McCain would be a better foreign policy choice than either Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama? Basically because I think that on foreign policy, deep down, he is in the line of traditional, Eisenhower Republicanism. It is George W. Bush and Cheney that are way outside the party traditions, up to their necks in Wilsonism.
Frankly I think McCain wants to actually do what Dubya said he wanted to do in 2000. That would be a G.H.W. Bush "restoration". Baker, Scowcroft, Powell doctrine stuff. Even Rice was supposed to be in that line. The surprise was when, after 9-11 Bush-II threw in his lot with the former Trotskista neocons. Even Yassir Arafat, who was pretty sharp, thought that Dubya was going to be like his father... they say the disappointment broke the old fellow's heart (sniff).
Although unfortunately phrased, Baker correctly defined the basic relationship between the oilmen Republicans and the Jewish community. I don't think that underlying logic has really changed. I suspect (hope?, pray?) that McCain is a closet Mearsheimer-Walt devotee.
The surprise was Dubya, who went against his entire culture and background to avoid antagonizing the people his father thought had cost him his reelection. I don't imagine that McCain has the same oedipal problems with Bush-I that Bush-II does, nor to share in his evangelical, last-days devotion to maximalist Zionism. In short, I'm hoping that he is an old fashioned, country club Republican.
As to McCain's professions of undying support for Israel, as Master Sun said, "war is deception": you don't telegraph your intentions. Keep AIPAC neutral. Talk about a hyperbolic, "hundred years in Iraq". Talk about, "bomb, bomb, bomb: bomb, bomb Iran". Neither a hundred years in Iraq nor bombing Iran appear doable: America is maxed out.
The fact is that if the USA could go to war with Iran it would have already happened; Cheney would have done it long ago if he could have. However, the United States' military is overextended and weary, and the country is on the brink of financial collapse. Setting the Middle East on fire would only push it over the edge.
Getting out of Iraq with some dignity is the number one foreign policy priority of the USA and the only existent plan for getting out of Iraq is the Baker Iraq Study Group's and negotiating with Iran is the key to its success. That is why the Israelis still hate Baker.
My feeling is that domestic policy (health care, education , etc.) should be in the hands of the Democrats and foreign policy should be in the hands of the "realists" and that US foreign policy should be deliberately minimalist, not the sort of Quixotic, Wilsonian brew that Obama is offering up or the Madeline Albright redux that Hillary is flogging.
None of this is at all sure, but frankly I cannot see any other successful alternative.
http://seaton-newslinks.blogspot.com/
Comments (8)
Basically because I think that on foreign policy, deep down, he is in the line of traditional, Eisenhower Republicanism...I suspect (hope?, pray?) that McCain...
You're on very shaky ground here.
"Deep down..."
"I suspect..."
What you're doing is projecting your hopes and ideals into the Republican candidate. Thinking that he doesn't mean exactly what he says.
Maybe there a dynamic of American politics you're missing by being too far away from the scene, but, if there's anything we learned from the last 8 years, it's never take a Republican at his or her word. That should be the real lesson we learned from the Bush II Administration.
This election isn't about what you hope in your own personal heart -- it's about reality. McCain says we can stay in Iraq for 100 years. McCain won't vote against torture.
I don't know what more what you want?
March 11, 2008 7:27 AM | Reply | Permalink
David, do you have any actual evidence for your wishful conjectures about this secret realist McCain, or are they just faith-based?
March 11, 2008 8:09 AM | Reply | Permalink
True that Clinton would be of Albright ilk, I think.
Not at all true that Obama would be Wilsonian. He is the opposite of the arrogant assumption of superiority implied in Wilson's idealism. That was top-down Utopianism, and Obama is cautious and conciliatory. The only absolute position he claimed was the right to pursue a criminal with solid intelligence, absent cooperation from local authority. Where is your evidence of Wilsonian, Quixotic views?
Can you acknowledge that Obama has already done more for electing Dems than Clinton, since he helped take Denny Hastert's seat for Foster? If the first objective is Dems in power, take note of who is delivering.
March 11, 2008 8:40 AM | Reply | Permalink
I just don't think that Obama has enough of a record to judge him at all. I think if Bush hadn't screwed uo so badly, he would have waited another eight years before making his run. He saw the "main chance" and went for it, but he is way too green for times like these.
On what do I base my belief that McCain is more in line with traditional Republicanism? Simply that this appoach is coming back in fashion conservative circles, in the military at State, etc. And that Republicans are less culturally and financially attuned to the AIPAC than Democrats are. I think that Mearsheimerism is the "sin that dare not speak its name" among much of the establishment. This I get from reading many conservative-conservative and libertarian sources and especially the Israeli press in English.
http://seaton-newslinks.blogspot.com
March 11, 2008 9:30 AM | Reply | Permalink
Dodging on Obama.
You call his foreign policy a "Quixotic, Wilsonian brew" and then say you can't judge it.
McCain is a disaster waiting to happen, I'd say. Clinton is not a problem, particularly, but I am not persuaded she is a solution, only a return to 90s policies.
March 11, 2008 10:07 AM | Reply | Permalink
I find Kagan's enthusiasm for Obama curious. He wants to increase defense spending, I believe. He would attack Pakistan without permission,etc, but most of all, except for what he tells us about himself, we know almost nothing about him.
A Democratic political consultant who passed through Madrid before Christmas, said that really the most important thing was to get ample majorities in both houses, more important than the presidency, he said. I'd like that to happen.
March 11, 2008 10:59 AM | Reply | Permalink
There is no question that the war in Iraq will have to be brought to a close and that to date the only bi-partisan plan to do so, it James Baker's and Baker has endorsed McCain. I see some connection, why is that so strange?
March 11, 2008 3:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
HAHAHAHA... from a guy who's spent months talking about how Obama supporters are delusional, we get "I suspect" and "I'm hoping" and similar such nonsense. All of a sudden, John McCain is using Sun-Tzu. I suppose Bush was, too, right?
You're not still allowed to vote are you? "I'm hoping" you're not.
March 12, 2008 12:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
Post a Comment