2008
– Choose Your Foreign Policy Poison
by
Michael S. Rozeff
by Michael S. Rozeff
Right now,
the 2008 election shapes up like this. The Republican frontrunners
are Senator John McCain (Az.) and Senator George Allen (Va.). McCain
is ahead of Allen. Giuliani is running third, quite far back.
Hillary Clinton
is the Democratic favorite with Governor Mark Warner (Va.) running
a distant second.
The Republicans
are slight favorites to retain the White House. All these rankings
are from Tradesports contracts.
Senators McCain
and Clinton are competing intensely in an Iran War tournament. First
prize goes to whoever stakes out the most pro-war position. Both
are hawks. Both are prepared to bomb Iran. Choose your war crimes
poison, Republican or Democratic.
In a speech
that could have been written and proofread by AIPAC, Clinton loudly
clanged all the pro-Israel and anti-Iran bells: "We cannot
and should not must not permit Iran to build or acquire
nuclear weapons." McCain ratcheted up the Iranian confrontation
to the most serious since the Cold War and declared that "a
nuclear capability in Iran is unacceptable." Is Iran a child
in need of correction? Choose your hectoring poison, red or blue.
Senator George
Allen of Virginia is another Iran War hawk. To him "Iran remains
a great threat to the United States and their neighboring countries
[sic] by continuing to acquire weapons of mass destruction."
In a masterpiece of logic, Senator Allen lauds his co-sponsorship
of the Iran and Libya Sanctions Act of 2001 while stating "my
sincere hope that by opening up economic channels and foreign investment
to Iran, it will help bring capitalism and greater freedom to the
Iranian people."
The 2001 Sanctions
Act and its predecessor try to squash any investment to develop
the petroleum resources of Iran and Libya! What stronger incentive
for development of nuclear power could there be? Choose Allen as
your dark horse poison.
Congress housed
hundreds of co-sponsors of the sanctions against Iran. Choose your
poison, a hawkish Congress or a hawkish Executive.
Governor Warner
may be running for Vice-President. He has no foreign policy experience,
but that doesn’t disqualify him. Most Presidents and Vice-Presidents
have no foreign policy experience, nor do they seem to learn much
while on the job.
The Governor
has occasionally spoken out on foreign matters, albeit briefly.
He views nuclear proliferation as a "tremendous challenge,"
especially in Iran and North Korea. This means that he doesn’t want
to see it happen, he does not see a low-cost way to prevent it,
but he’s against it. He also thinks that "Islamic extremism
is a challenge." This means he’ll continue the war on terror.
In 1996, Warner favored the deployment of U.S. ground troops to
Yugoslavia. He favors foreign and economic aid when they are used
to further U.S. interests. It looks again like a case of choose
your poison. This poison may have more of a Bill Clinton flavor.
The good thing
about 2008 is that Bush will become an ex-President. The bad thing
is that whoever replaces him will probably continue his policies,
which are in turn extensions of policies that go back decades. Congress
repeatedly has made clear its support of America’s Empire. America
will continue to ally itself with some and make enemies of others.
For what reasons?
No one can deny the role of the interest groups, foreign and domestic,
that have had their say and gotten their way. Yet beyond the imperatives
of money and interests, in the main American politicians are now
become a crowd, an unthinking herd that sounds a variety of refrains
with a single voice nuclear threat, weapons of mass destruction,
democracy, freedom, terror, the homeland, national security, vital
interests. Maybe a Hillary Clinton calculates her words, and maybe
a John McCain does not. But they come out very nearly the same.
We do not have a single Cato demanding that Carthage must be destroyed.
We have a chorus of them.
The Communists
did not subvert the United States of America. We ourselves accomplished
that. In the process, we subverted thoughtful thought.
Too many opinion
leaders and too many rulers have listened to the same idiotic phrases,
the same simpleminded interpretations, the same falsified history,
and accepted them. This makes for an unthinking crowd. Too many
have been lulled into a condition of unthinking acceptance of wild
phrases and ideas. They spout what they hear. They spout to the
camera. They spout what a speech writer puts in front of them. If
they are Senators, they simply spout.
We now have
wall-to-wall commentators whose main claim to fame is an unfettered
gift of gab when the cameras are running speaking a mile
a minute, interrupting each other, yelling at each other, and striving
to come out on top. Reporters have become stars in their own right.
Their questions are speeches, running longer than the answers of
those whom they interview.
Choose your
poison, Republican or Democratic, red or blue. It is as you might
choose a dry breakfast cereal. They occupy an entire aisle, but
you will find they are all pretty much the same, jacked up with
sugar, vitamins and iron. They all promise health, a healthy heart,
that you will lose weight, and conformity with a new and revised
food pyramid. In the same way will our major parties offer a choice
of more of the same.
The great excitement
will be within each party as the zealots eagerly create PACs and
raise money, pushing their newly-minted men and women of the hour,
the new photogenic centrists who will capture the opposition vote
and return the party to power. To do what? To reform education,
wean the country away from oil, save Social Security and Medicare,
and now to fight the never-ending war on terror and preserve the
security of the "Homeland."
Homeland
is an odious term! What’s wrong with America and Americans? Why
do we need a German-sounding phrase, reminiscent of heimat
or vaterland, a word with overly nationalistic and ethnic,
even Nazi connotations, a word that attempts to unite all Americans
into one fearful unit? Perhaps Karl Rove was responsible for this
concept. Let us reject it and the Department of Homeland Security
that goes with it. Let us choose none of the poisons proffered to
us under any and all guises.
February
8, 2006
Michael
S. Rozeff [send him mail]
is the Louis M. Jacobs Professor of Finance at University at Buffalo.
Copyright
© 2006 LewRockwell.com
Michael
S. Rozeff Archives
|