John McCain's big "ugh" of a foreign policy speech
Posted 17 weeks 15 hours ago byJohn McCain talked about foreign policy in Los Angeles today. The good news is, McCain is no Bush. The bad news is, McCain is McCain. Forgive my visceral reaction, then, but it can't be helped: Ugh.
McCain's remarks on Iraq are getting the most attention, although I don't think he said anything new or especially controversial for a Republican "maverick." (Read Joel's observations if you haven't already done so.) But the more interesting news is that McCain threw down on Russia. Again. Voters would do well to heed and ponder what McCain has to say, because the way things are going he looks to be the leader of the free world come January.
McCain's describes his foreign policy as idealistically realistic. Or is it realistically idealistic? "I am, from hard experience and the judgment it informs, a realistic idealist." Got it. The muddled phrase helps explain why idealists and realists alike find aspects of McCain so appealing and yet so bewildering.
So, what would a realistically idealistic McCain foreign policy look like?
- McCain advocates supplanting the United Nations (good) with a new league of democracies (ugh) that would "strengthen our global alliances" and "harness the vast influence of the more than 100 democratic nations around the world to advance our values and defend our shared interests."
- McCain says we "can't torture or treat inhumanely suspected terrorists we have captured" (good) but believes "we should close Guantanamo and work with our allies to forge a new international understanding" of what to do with terrorists we catch. (Ugh!)
- McCain supports "international good citizenship" (ugh) in which the United States leads the way in crafting "a successor to the Kyoto Treaty" (ugh), and "a cap-and-trade system that delivers the necessary environmental impact in an economically responsible manner." (UGH!)
- In the Western Hemisphere, McCain believes "relations with our southern neighbors must be governed by mutual respect, not by an imperial impulse or by anti-American demagoguery." Ug... huh? I read that sentence a couple of times and before I understood what McCain is getting at. U.S. relations with our southern neighbors must not be governed by anti-American demagoguery? Then it dawned on me. He's talking about Americans who oppose illegal immigration!
- And in tackling Islamic terrorism, which McCain rightly characterized as "the transcendent challenge" of our time, "scholarships will be far more important than smart bombs."
Ugh, ugh, ugh.
Realistically idealistic? Aggressively internationalist might be a better description. Words matter. Instead of talking about "shared interests," I'd rather McCain think more in terms of American interests first and foremost.
Democratic party big wigs wasted little time hammering McCain's speech, though clearly they didn't listen to it or simply heard what they wanted to hear and score some points on Iraq. Howard Dean simply dismissed it as "empty rhetoric." As Andy McCarthy quipped at the Corner: "One can only hope."
Thoughts
John Mc Cain
Submitted on April 8th, 2008 by AnonymousI suspect Iran is going to have a complete melt down of their nuclear weapons program and the aggressive action towards the U.S.A. or will significantly reduce the BS its been putting out because that’s exactly what they did the day Ronald Reagan took office. I remember sitting on an aircraft carrier with a significant number of marines anxiously waiting for Ronnie’s ok to have us introduce ourselves to them. I believe that John Mc Cain is the man that will besides driving the fear of god back into the Iranians will reestablish our Ronald Reagan, Teddy Roosevelt foreign policy of do not tread on us or our friends please.
Re: Scholarships vs. smart bombs
Submitted on March 27th, 2008 by JoelSpencer Ackerman says the same thing I just said, only smarter:
What he said.
Scholarships versus smart bombs
Submitted on March 27th, 2008 by JoelFar be it from me to defend John McCain, but I think you guys are being too hard on the man.
You're right, of course, that some of the nastiest terrorists around have had fairly extensive exposure both to the West and to higher education. But I think it's somewhat shallow to look at those examples, throw up our hands and say: "Well, that didn't work! Violence is the only thing that works."
Bin Laden and Atta are Saudi Arabian and Egyptian, respectively, two countries that are U.S. allies, more or less, but which are -- let's just be honest here -- totalitarian with respect to the lives and politics of their own people. So bin Laden and Atta aren't just the products of western education; they're the products, too, of those cultures.
Giving scholarships won't end terrorism. Neither will killing terrorists, because there will always be somebody else. What giving scholarships -- and creating other opportunities for exposure to Western culture and freedom -- can do is drain the swamp somewhat, depriving (over time) terrorists of the support and sympathy that they do, in fact, have in the populations at large. That might not keep them from mounting attacks, but it might reduce their effectiveness significantly.
It's false to suggest that the choice should be scholarships AND smart bombs, then. A little more of the former might reduce the need for the latter, which can still be used against the die-hards who try to harm us. But a policy that focuses solely on the smart bombs only ensures that we'll have to keep using them.
McCain and his "ugh" speech
Submitted on March 27th, 2008 by Jim LakelyMark Steyn, over at The Corner, was also troubled by McCain's speech. I especially liked this bit about scholarships vs. smart bombs:
True, true, true.