Jimmy, Barack, Hillary, Bernie, & foreign policy

[foolsguinea.livejournal.com]

Jimmy Carter was the first US President I remember. I still like & respect Jimmy Carter, even though in hindsight he didn't really continue the successful economic policies of previous Democrats, and he didn't stop the imperialist activities of the USA in Latin America.

I can like someone while recognizing that they have glaring flaws among their good points. I bring this up because it's relevant to how we look at Barack Obama. Obama is likeable, and he's cool, and his presidency is important to a lot of people--and his foreign policy team is crap. Total crap.

War in Libya with the opposition of Congress--are we playing at being Dick Nixon & Henry Kissinger now?
Trying to depose Assad via the ragtag Free Syrian Army, and probably contributing to the Syrian refugee crisis--instead of offering food aid when Syria was in a five-year drought and a killer famine, possibly thawing relations with Assad, and averting the refugee crisis.
And both of the above empowered "Islamic State." Lovely.
Assassinating Muslim preacher Anwar al-Awlaki. Then assassinating his teenage son. Obama flak-catcher then saying, "Should've had a better dad!" Class act. e_e
The "double tap" drone policy which attacks first responders after an assassination strike, not to mention that our foreign policy relies on assassination strikes at all.
America apparently completely blowing the Copenhagen climate summit in 2009? I don't know as much about this one.

All of this happened when Hillary Clinton was Secretary of State. I'm not giving John Kerry a free pass. I'm just saying, if she wants to run on this record, I'm not seeing enough positives to outweigh negatives. It's not really a great record on the merits.

Then she stood in front of a bunch of Democratic primary voters and invoked Henry Kissinger as someone who approved of her state department. Um, OK, you can take a compliment from a predecessor, but trumpeting that is odd. Do you even know where you are, lady? Republicans might accept that endorsement; I grew up Republican, and I think we sort of knew Kissinger was a supervillain, but he was our supervillain. In front of a bunch of liberal US Democrats? Uhhh, no.

Bernie isn't perfect. Drone attacks will probably continue under him in some form. But I think I'd rather take a chance on his foreign policy than on hers. Of course, that's easy to say, given that I tend to agree with him on other issues.

Tulsi Gabbard's endorsement of Bernie yesterday makes me think I'm onto something. Hillary Clinton was a bad Secretary of State who backed foolish policies that caused problems for other countries, including our European allies. And to no advantage to our country.

She has not earned the respect her resumé would imply. And at least Bernie isn't looking to Kissinger as a mentor and role model.

Just one of the reasons I am asking you to vote for Bernie Sanders in your state's Democratic primary.

Comments

[dexeron.livejournal.com]

Got to go off on a tangent since you mentioned Carter. ;)

I respect Carter more and more as time passes and more and more comes out about what really went on under his administration. Now that the truth is stating to come out about how Reagan really had little to do with the freeing of the hostages in Iran, but that it was in fact almost entirely Carter's doing, the narrative that he was a "weak" President really falls apart.

He was never weak. But, he wasn't a blowhard who trumpeted his own strength. He was the kind of guy who knew he was strong and didn't need to prove it to anyone (compare to the bluster of recent GOP candidates, or even cowboy Saint Reagan himself.) I mean, how many people know that Carter was a veteran? That while in the Navy he physically walked into a melting down nuclear reactor to help dismantle the damn thing (knowing that he was very likely killing himself) in order to save lives? He was fucking Spock in the Wrath of Khan! And people dared to call this guy weak, just because he actually knew the consequences of war and tried to avoid it wherever possible? Because he dared to not jump to military action as the first and only resort?

I mean, his Presidency wasn't perfect. There were good policies and bad policies (his disastrous policy with regards to East Timor is something he deserves to be criticized for) and he also sat during a very troubled economic time (though let's not pretend that he actually had anything to do with the Energy Crisis. The recovery was continuing under his watch up until the Energy Crisis, and no President, Republican or Democratic, could have prevented that Crisis from undoing that recovery.) But overall, he was competent, just not flashy. And his work since his Presidency has only confirmed the kind of person he was. And maybe that kind of person isn't the best person to sit in the Oval Office, and is more effective as an elder Statesman. Still, I am going to be seriously crushed when Carter finally passes away. He didn't get enough credit for the good he did, and got too much blame for the bad he had nothing to do with.

[garote]

His presidency was also quite a long time ago. I can imagine a similar situation, 20 years from now, when an entirely different generation will look back at a more impartial record of what George Bush Jr. did in office, and think the same thing. There were a lot of things he did that flew under the radar, and/or were outright ignored by people who weren't interested in following anything his cabinet did except what the press was talking about in the broadest strokes (e.g. trumped-up Iraq war evidence, various teleprompter reading gaffes, and finishing his story to the kids in the classroom even after an aide told him there had been an attack.)

I'm not saying he's going to be fondly remembered, let alone missed, but I am saying that history will remember him with a lot more impartiality than people born in the last century do.

[dexeron.livejournal.com]

There's a lot of emotional investment when we're discussing a President who sat while we were alive. We remember our emotions, and those override facts.

Alexander Hamilton's reputation was destroyed by people who hated him for his brashness (and let's face it, the guy was kind of an asshole.) They outlived him, and were in power, so they set the tone of his remembrance. Nowadays, with more impartiality, we can have historians who look back at Hamilton and can assess him without emotion, and recognize his negative traits (his personality) but also his brilliance, and all of the many incredible things he accomplished.

(insert plug for the awesome recent "Hamilton" musical here, because seriously, it is awesome.)

I'm sure George W. Bush will be remembered with less vitriol by future generations. They can see what he did right - but also what he did wrong - with clearer heads, praising and condemning as is necessary.

[underlankers.livejournal.com]

I have much respect for his seeing the merits of weaning the USA off of excess dependence on oil. The rest of his Administration is subject to a damnatio memoriae for a reason. People would be surprised to realize that Reagan's arms expansions just swelled up what Carter began and that Carter established the basis for the idiotic and perennial colonial misadventures of the United States in the Middle East.

[dexeron.livejournal.com]

Colonial misadventures were already going since Eisenhower, largely in response to the same thing on the Soviet side (which were in response to the same thing on the American side... it's a chicken-egg question.)

With interests in the region already firmly established, one can then look at Carter's actions and ask: what was he hoping to accomplish?

I see involvement in trying to push through a peace-process, as opposed to regime change (a la Eisenhower) and nation building (a la Bush, and, to a lesser extent, Obama.) That peace-process was imperfect (we can talk about rippling consequences all we want) but the fact is: it ended armed conflict between Egypt and Israel, and changed the narrative to one where dialogue with Israel was at least technically possible for the other Arab nations. It's often forgotten just how huge that was.

His continuing work to resolve the other thorny problems like the Palestinian question speak to his motivation. Meddling overseas might be a form of colonialism, but when it's done in an attempt to fix what earlier colonial meddling caused, it's kind of hard to really criticize it. And honestly, "colonial misadventures" isn't really the first thing one thinks of when summarizing the Carter administration. Those misadventures started long before he took office.