Senator Richard Lugar (R-Indiana) blasts Bush foreign policy

Lugar is number 323 of the Republicans who you would rather have as President than Bush.

I am still thinking hard about Tom DeLay. That's a close one.

 

I posted this in another thread. IIRC the Arab reform thread. Maybe it was the elite thread. Either way Luger did not "blast" Bush although that is the headline of the AP version of the story.

From the lnk we have these comments by the reporter,

* sent a clear message to the White House
* to a lesser extent, the Republican- controlled Congress
* he suggested there has been
* too much scoffing at international treaties
* was not about to break with the administration. But in the next breath, he criticized
* avoided referring directly to President Bush or his administration by name
* there was no mistaking the main target of his remarks
* addressed the go-it-alone tendencies of the Bush Administration, which have at times alienated our alliances abroad

Compare this to text of the speech

* We have engaged in self-flagellation over the Sept. 11 tragedy rather than executing affirmative global strategies aimed at addressing the root causes of terrorism.
* Unless the United States commits itself to a sustained program of repairing and building alliances, expanding trade, pursuing resolutions to regional conflicts, supporting democracy and development worldwide, and controlling weapons of mass destruction,
* National security decision-making can rarely be separated from the constraints of the international community, if only because our resources and influence are finite.
* Our security depends not on clever decision-making about when to go it alone, but on careful maintenance of our relations with other countries that ensures the international community will be with us in a crisis.

Which, if you read the Senator's actual statements, he proposes a Liberal foreign policy of engagement and action. Luger is a true neo-con.

ML2's link gives a link to the actual text of the speech. here are some more quotes,

"The experience of September 11, 2001, re-taught a grim lesson that our nation has periodically had to re-learn: trouble will find us whether or not we choose to be involved in the world. Because advances in transportation and communication have shrunk the world and because the United States is now universally regarded as the most powerful nation on Earth, this condition is inescapable.

"The world is not benign if left alone."

"But our power and status have conferred upon us a tremendous responsibility to humanity. In an era afflicted with terrorism, the world will not be secure and just and prosperous unless the united states and talented individuals devote themselves to international leadership."

" to win the war against terrorism, the united states must assign u.s. economic and diplomatic capabilities the same strategic priority that we assign to military capabilities. there are no shortcuts to victory. we must commit ourselves to the slow, painstaking work of foreign policy day by day and year by year."

"Unless the United States commits itself to a sustained program of repairing and building alliances, expanding trade, pursuing resolutions to regional conflicts, supporting democracy and development worldwide, and controlling weapons of mass destruction, we are likely to experience acts of catastrophic terrorism that would undermine our economy, damage our society, and kill hundreds of thousands, if not millions of people."

"we have not approached foreign policy with the determination and imagination that is required to respond to the risks that we face."

"Partisan posturing continues over whether to support these treaties, when the real question is why the United States -- occupying a seemingly unrivaled position in the world - cannot negotiate satisfactory agreements that would be supported both at home and overseas."

" I am convinced that the majority of American people do understand that we have a moral responsibility to foster the concepts of opportunity, free enterprise, the rule of law, and democracy. They understand that these values are the hope of the world. They are ready to make sacrifices, particularly in response to thoughtful leadership."

Or, to paraphrase JFK, "Ask not what the world can do for you but what you can do for the world."

http://fletcher.tufts.edu/news/2004/05/lugar.shtml

 

Now you just promised to ignore my posts

Perhaps this is the most important quote,

And this really is the biggest problem in our domestic debate about foreign affairs. Since Vietnam we've had a dysfunctional two party system. We've gone from the JFK/LBJ Great Society model of looking at the world to the Ted Kennedy view. The first was that government should be engaged at home and abroad and the second was that we should be engaged at home but not abroad. We've tried to mix the hope that we the people can use government to help ourselves with the idea that we can’t use it to help ourselves abroad. There are a few intellectually honest liberals and honest conservatives. However there are many more conservatives who say that the US should be creating new trade treaties and sending it's military here and there (Luger) and many more liberals who say we should stay at home and spend lots of government money (Kennedy). We are locked into this because of partisanship and nothing more. It's time for an isolationist third party. I posted this in another thread but here is what the ragin cajin Carville says on this topic,

When, not if, a liberal democrat gets elected to the White House there will be a lot of disappointed American Leftists. Many on the Left think the Democrats are isolationist. However all elected democrats of any consequence know that isolationism is not possible even while they give the wrong impression to their followers. Just like Clinton supported NAFTA and spawned a third party so to will the next democratic president support an engaged foreign policy.

 

I think you just have your head in the sand. You state in your final sentence that Clinton was engaged and the next Democrat will be engaged, which of course isn't news to any person with a brain. Which of course makes your statement "Many on the Left think the Democrats are isolationists" very strange, to put it politely.

You seem to be trying to get something intelligent out but the other voices just seem to be getting in the way. As far as I can tell.

 

Let me re-state it. The most in the hate-Bush crowd (BS posters excepted) don't realize that there is a fundamental schism in their group. On one hand, we have the anti-globalist Seattle rioters and on the other hand we have the use-the-UN globalists. The latter would say that GWB has done it all wrong. The former would say he shouldn't be doing "it" in the first place. They both hate GWB but only the globalist faction can win the presidency.

This leads to the Nader charge that Corperate interests run our government and that the American people lose no matter if Gore or Bush were president. For instance, we've already had Kerry switch positions on out-sourcing due to, I think, corperate donor pressure and, if Kerry is elected, that will lead to a lot of disapointed Leftist voters.

 

Well, I guess in light of what you are saying, so?

Okay, so to clarify, you are saying that if Kerry is elected, there will be a lot of disappointed Leftists (in this case, particularly anti-globalists)?

I think everyone already knew this. So we have a thread about Lugar criticising the administration and you are making the prophet of the obvious point that anti-Globalists would favor Nadar?

Thanks.

 

Uh, no. The "Seattle rioters" part is tiny. Those aren't people who form the bedrock of the Democratic party, and are quite likely to vote for Nader anyway. This is not a schism.

No, it will lead to some dissatisfied people. You do realize that there is no perfect "leftist"? No matter who's elected, someone will dislike him. As is true for conservatives. You should know that by now. There are MANY conservatives who don't like Bush.

Your macro theorizing is just plain stupid. Schism. LOL. This from the party trying to cobble together religious loonies, neo-cons and "conservatives".

 

You're welcome.

Luger criticizes Bush for not being globalist enough. The rejoicing on the Left shouldn't be unanimous. many on the Left should be arguing that Luger is worse than Bush. I think they hear some measured criticism of Bush and are just content to hear it. This contentment will be short lived. The larger point being we as voters need to have informed decisions to vote FOR something rather than vote against the other 'side'.

 

1. Most voters are so ill-informed, it doesn't make much of a difference.
2. Sometimes one option is so bad, it makes no sense to keep it. I cannot think of more than 1 thing Bush has done policy-wise that I approve of. On top of that, he's incompetent. At this point, I'd take Lugar, who might be a neo-con, but might also invade the correct country once in a while.

 

Of course they are content to hear criticism of Bush. Everyone should be, whever it comes from.

I don't know if there is any "rejoicing". You went out of your way to point out that Lugar didn't BLAST anyone and now you think people are rejoicing about Lugar?

(I am sorry that so many of my comments to you end in question marks but some of your remarks just are such mush.)

I am informed. And I want Bush out. Just because you are willing to accept many different people in place of a useless one doesn't mean you are ill informed.

I won't accept anyone to replace him. My "Anyone But Bush" believe carries some qualifications. But the bar is pretty low, becaue Bush is a pretty lousy President.

 

You're mistaken if you think that the left holds the view, or should hold the view, that the US should not be invovled in world affairs. It's just a faulty premise. Democrats and leftists are not isolationists. On the contrary, some are very much in favor of international cooperation on a variety of issues.

Now I usually tune out when crunchy hippies start yammering about globalization, so I can't represent their point-of-view fairly. But I do get the impression that "globalization" does not mean America being involved in the world. I believe it has more to do with the way in which America is currently involved in the world. Our current international policies, both political and economic, are harmful according to this view. But the solution is not necessarily isolationsism, and I'm not sure where you're getting that.

And even if there are some hard-core leftists who favor isolationism, they are far from the mainstream of the Democratic party.

So as far as I can tell, your point is based on an imaginary premise. Or else you actually do live on another planet, perhaps in some sort of parallel universe? That's the impression I've been getting from you lately.

 

IMO, globalization is more of a codeword for how international groups such as the IMF bond together to take the wealth from third world nations and enrich those nations and entities and corporations already in power.

Democrats realize that both Republicans and Democrats are in bed with international financial institutions and methods.

 

Okay. I'm trying to argue a two part case here and we are getting tripped up. My point was that the old notions of 'left' and 'right' have changed. Fifty years ago we generally had a definition of Left as for more government and Right as less government. So once upon a time, the Reps generally believed in less of everything, i.e. Hoover, while the Dems believed in more of everything, i.e. JFK. Vietnam happened and messed up the philosophical difference. Granted, before 9/11 there were some liberals that believed in more military spending, i.e. Scoop Jackson, and some conservatives who believed in a more isolationist foreign policy, i.e. Pat Buchanan. In general though, the Democrats generally supported a more isolationist, less aggressive foreign policy while the Republicans believed in spending lots of money on the military.

9/11 changed this and makes the philosophical hypocrisy of the Left and the Right important.

The neo-cons are conservatives who believe that America has a responsibility to spread democracy. The Left generally believes our government is too impotent to do that. The neo-cons believe in a pro-NAFTA, pro engagement philosophy while many on the left would like to see us withdraw from Iraq and renegotiate NAFTA to include environmental protections. Leftist labor would rather we had not to have entered NAFTA to begin with.

So we generally have the Clinton/Bush pro-NAFTA side of the foreign policy divide against the Buchanan/Nader side. Maybe we could call the new parties the pro-NAFTA and anti-NAFTA parties. The pro-NAFTA party would be for outsourcing, for spreading democracy in Iraq and for free trade agreements (even forcing countries to compete even on environmental laws).

Now I don’t want to get hung up on NAFTA because that's not the issue. The point is that we have a philosophy that is for forcing ourselves on the rest of the world through GAT, NAFTA, Koyoto and even the US Marines. On the other side we have people who generally see these agreements and actions as the corporate interests like Haliburton or the Rockefeller Foundations exploiting us.

So rather than come up with terms like "neo-cons", "paleo-libs" and the like, it is time for talk of a party realignment.

Bush domestically has more in common with historical Liberals than historical Conservatives.

Were I'm getting that is from people like Nader, Buchanan, and Kusinich telling people like McCain, Luger, and Lieberman that we are generally too engaged overseas and need to spend our attention on domestic concerns. This issue cuts across party lines because the old definitions are based on pre-9/11 understandings of what it means to be Left and Right. This is what Carville and I are getting at. The moment is ripe for a realignment due to the changed circumstances that we find ourselves in today. Imagine if the isolationist left were to cooperate with the isolationist right against what was left of the Democrat and Republican parties. That third party could get about 25% to 40% of the vote. In a three way race, that would give them an even chance of winning the presidency. The question is then how important is isolationism. 9/11 makes it a very important question. Do we generally trust the government to do what's best for us or should we expect the government to do little more than try to protect us?

 

I don't think that's true. There are many died in the wool union democrats who have been sold out by pro-NAFTA, pro-outsourcing democratic politicians.

 

Ugh. Isolationist and less agressive are NOT synonyms. They're different concepts. Nor do I think you are correct. The stupidity of the domino theory and much of the cold war bungling was done by Democratic presidents.
Unless MacNamara was working for Republicans?

What philosophical hypocrisy?

No! The left doesn't think we're too "impotent", the left thinks we shouldn't meddle with things that don't need meddling. Such as, instilling "democracy" in places where it probably won't work. The neo-cons think that can change the shape of the middle east with the military. The left doesn't think that we'll succeed institutionally, not that we can't succeed militarily.

Rubbish! What "pro-labor" left is there anymore? Dick Gephard and the stench of defeat he carries with him? Bubba signed NAFTA, Dubya created new steel tariffs. What "pro-labor" left?

"Leftist labor" describes what, 15 people?

But Nader and Buchanan are on the fringes of both conservatives and liberals. Nader isn't really a liberal anyway - he's an egocentric jackass. When you lump in Buchanan and Nader together and try to make an argument about the American left, you know you're up a creek without a paddle.

Yes, but Nader and Buchanans don't represent the left. I'm not sure what this Koyoto is, but if you're referring to Kyoto, I should remind you that it was signed by a Democratic President who knew that it would never be ratified? Why? Because the Senate voted 95-0 against it.

No, its not. Its just time for you to abandon your notions of what you think "the Left" is, because they have nothing to do with reality.

Bush is no conservative, that is true.

These people don't represent the left!

You're making up numbers out of thin air. There won't be any realignment because the republicans have far too much to gain from pandering to the Christian poor in the South. Besides, where is this pro-labor Democrat vote? The Nader vote? Along with the Buchanan vote? Wow, they might get 5% combined. Especially since their other platforms won't always be similar.

You're just not making any sense.

 

Sorry nic but since your pearl harbor post I'm not going to bother to read multi-paragraph posts from you.

 

Them's fighting words!




p.s. You left out the "t" as in Vice-President

 

Sorry, Ben, but Gephardt is about as exciting to the national electorate as a love child of Walter Mondale and Gingrich's lesbian sister.

 

Translation: "I make stupid historical analogies which I don't fully understand, and then get upset when I get called on it. Your facts get in the way of my wild rambling. Wah!"

OK. So long as we're clear on that.

 

No it's just the manners and politness which you lack that is the problem.

 

Suuure. That's what it is. I thought that it was my "multi paragraph posts" that were the problem? Look, you can make whatever excuses you want - whatever lets you slink away from an incoherent argument of your making.

 

Gephardt's ideas are exciting, but I suppose nobody cares about trivial things like public policy and real character. Nevertheless, it's likely Gephardt or Nelson for VP.