Posted by
Andrews on Monday, May 26, 2008 2:19:59 PM
I know that many are arguing that Hillary would prove to be a repeat of the first Clinton co-presidency, but I have to say, in terms of policy, it appears that Obama is far more likely to be another Clinton than Mrs. Clinton is.
Let us look at the facts. Both were adept at running content free campaigns, both had ideologies far to the left of their platforms, both promised "change", and both ran on charisma rather than any coherent platform. Even in terms of trivialities they seem quite similar. They both seemed unable to avoid scandals, even doing things that prolonged scandals they could have avoided. And Obama is trying to make this even more similar by campaigning against an unpopular Bush rather than McCain.
However, there is one major difference, Clinton ran on domestic policy during a time of relative peace, while Obama is running largely on domestic policy during a time of huge threat. And that is where the danger of another "feel good" Clinton-type presidency lies. Even during the relatively peaceful 1990's, Clinton's willful ignorance of foreign affairs set the stage for 9/11, a nuclear North Korea, Putin's expansionism, and China's as well. By ignoring foreign policy, Clinton gave the impression that the US was uninterested in the rest of the world, allowing foreign leaders to carry on as they wished, creating many of the threats we see today.
Were we to elect Obama, with his fondness for talk, we would be setting the stage for much, much worse. Foreign nations were temporarily confused by Bush's foreign policy, unsure if the US was breaking with its weak foreign policy of the Clinton years. The endless congressional bickering and Bush weakness in face of public disapproval made them think that perhaps Iraq and Afghanistan were flukes, and the US really is no longer a player in international affairs. An Obama presidency would confirm that. Which means the US would no longer be able to reign in any of these rogue states.
It may not cause any direct harm immediately. Far more likely we would be left alone for a time while states around the globe carried out their plans for consolidation. Instead of any attacks on US interests, we would see Russian power quietly expanding into eastern Europe and Central Asia. China would absorb Taiwan and try to exert influence over Southeast Asia and Japan. Chavez would export revolution to the Caribbean and South and Central America. Israel would suffer an unprecedented wave of attacks, openly sponsored by neighboring states. Iran would try to exercise control over the Middle East, and maybe parts of Central Asia. Even North Korea may try to enter the fray, using its willingness to export technology to establish some client states among the smaller dictatorships in which the other powers are not interested. Only once these foreign states were confident in their power would we start to see attacks on American interests. Maybe not until after Obama left office.
The problem is, by them it would be too late. Just as the Clinton presidency allowed al Qaida and others to establish networks and set up massive support networks, an Obama presidency would give foreign aggressors time to establish strong power bases around the world, as well as establish terrorist networks of their own. By the time someone struck, we would no longer be in a position to defend ourselves.
Of course, the US is a strong, wealthy nation. Even with eight years in which to prepare, other nations may still not be strong enough to attack us with impunity, we would likely survive. But what if rather than direct attacks, they attacked us through terrorist proxies? With no one at whom to strike, what would we do?
Do we really want to start the war on terror anew in eight years? Or do we want to finish it now?
We just cannot afford another presidency which turns a blind eye to international affairs. Or which has infinite faith in the power of negotiations.