http://www.commondreams.org/views04/1027-35.htmIn response to my ranting about Kerry’s attacks on the World Court, his support for spending even more tax dollars on the already-bloated Pentagon budget, and his defense of the Israeli occupation of the West Bank and the U.S. occupation of Iraq, my colleague shared his agreement with all my concerns, but noted, “At least he believes in evolution!”
This underscores a crucial point: although Kerry certainly shares Bush’s militarist and imperialist mindset, he is a reasonably intelligent and knowledgeable man, who is less prone to act on impulse or blind ideological faith. He is more likely to listen to the concerns of the international community. He is more likely to understand the complexities of a given situation rather than simply see it in quasi-religious terms of “good” versus “evil.”
For example, though Kerry currently says he will not withdraw American troops from Iraq for at least another four years, he is more likely than Bush to recognize the need to pull out if it is clear that there is no better alternative. Though Iraq is such a mess now that it is unlikely that Kerry will be any more successful than Bush in getting other countries to contribute troops, he would almost certainly be more willing to allow the United Nations to take more leadership than Bush has allowed in attempting to resolve the conflict and build a more stable and democratic Iraq.
Despite Kerry’s strident opposition to the peace efforts of Israeli centrists and progressives, he does not share the millennialist theology so influential in Republican circles that sees an expansionist Israel as necessary for the Second Coming of Christ. As a result, despite Kerry’s seemingly pathological hatred of Palestinian Arabs, he is more likely to challenge Israeli expansionists like Sharon and to eventually recognize that Israeli security can never be assured as long as the Palestinians are denied their right to truly viable state of their own. <SNIP>
My favorite part was this paragraph...
Despite claims to the contrary, Kerry was hardly the most “electable” candidate the Democrats could have nominated. If, for example, Howard Dean was the nominee, the debate during the fall campaign would have been centered around Bush’s disastrous policy on Iraq, not the Democratic nominee’s real and alleged “flip-flopping.” Regarding Israel and Palestine, Dean would have attracted the support of the majority of Americans – including most Jewish Americans – who are pro-Israel but believe that the United States should play a more even-handed role in the peace process. With foreign policy, for the first time in many years, being the primary concern of voters, a moderately liberal nominee like Dean would have forced real policy issues to the forefront, giving the Democrats the advantage. Instead, by nominating Kerry – who shares Bush’s belief in American unilateralism and the right of the United States and its allies to invade and occupy other nations – the primary focus of the campaign has been on personality, “character,” and “leadership,” which have played to the advantage of the Republicans. <SNIP>
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
