Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is a piece of work, an anti-Semitic demagogue with a penchant for the unpredictable. The Iranians can do better, declares U.S. President George W. Bush.
As President Bush put it: “My message to the Iranian people is: You can do better than to have somebody try to rewrite history. You can do better than somebody who hasn’t strengthened your economy.”
Quite true. Ahmadinejad has trouble with the truth when it comes to Jews and the Holocaust. He also has presided over a poorly performing economy. The Iranian people could do better.
But so could the American people.
There’s something faintly ridiculous about President Bush lecturing another country about the quality of its political leadership. It’s not as if he’s the best Americans can do. The number of good decisions that he’s made about policies, domestic and foreign, probably fits on one hand. As a consequence, no one should commend the American people for the presidential choice they made in 2000 and 2004.
Indeed, there’s more than a little of the “pot calling the kettle black” to President Bush’s analysis. For instance, he complained of Iran’s Ahmadinejad: The Iranian people “have got a leader who constantly sends messages to the world that Iran is out of step with the majority of thinkers, that Iran is willing to become isolated, to the detriment of the people.”
Rather like the American people, who have got a leader who constantly sends messages to the world the U.S. is out of step with the majority of thinkers, that the U.S. is willing to become isolated, to the detriment of the people.
One wonders what the average Iranian thinks of Bush’s comments. Perhaps the same as the Palestinian who, learning that actor Richard Gere had made a televised pitch to voters in an upcoming election in the occupied territories, opined: “We don’t need the Americans’ intervention. We know who to elect. Not like them – they elected a moron.”
Americans, like this Palestinian, really wouldn’t appreciate outsiders seeking to “help them” decide for whom to vote. But with the presidential race heating up, Americans need to think seriously about 2008. Otherwise they are likely to elect another candidate who will leave them feeling, correctly, that they “can do better.”
The most important issue today is the Iraq war, along with the broader foreign policy of empire which has led to that disaster. For understandable reasons Americans tend to be insular, focused on domestic concerns. This election they must consider candidate views on international affairs, particularly on the Bush administration’s policy of promiscuous warmaking.
At issue is not just Iraq. It also is the administration’s preventive war philosophy, which presumes that the U.S. has the moral right, intelligence capabilities, and military resources to discern and destroy any number of as-yet-undetermined future enemies. Iraq is part of a whole, a misguided, counterproductive foreign policy that should be junked in its entirety.
On the Republican side there are few good choices. Darkhorse Rep. Ron Paul (R-Tex.) is without doubt the best candidate, a critic of the war from the start. And he wants America out of Iraq today, not next year.
Sen. Chuck Hagel (R-Neb.), only a possible presidential candidate at this time, would be another good choice. A decorated Vietnam War veteran, he has fearlessly confronted administration officials and has even been willing to use the “i” word, impeachment, in conjunction with President Bush.
Otherwise the GOP field is grim. Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) is more hawkish, unpredictable, temperamental, and irresponsible than President Bush. In contrast to George Bush, who merely refused to talk to the North Koreans for years, Sen. McCain has cheerfully suggested bombing the heavily armed Democratic People’s Republic of Korea. Needless to say, his lighthearted approach to war has not endeared him to the South Koreans, who would wear big bullseyes when the North retaliated.
The perennially ambitious Newt Gingrich, as yet only a potential candidate, may be even more dangerous. He apparently believes that he is Winston Churchill reincarnated, fated to save the world from the Islamic jihadist onslaught.
Former Sen. Fred Thompson, another possible contender, is less obviously a megalomaniac, but talks in similar apocalyptic terms. Rudy Giuliani so far has backed Bush’s failed Iraq policies. Former Mass. Gov. Mitt Romney also endorses the president’s failed strategy – though he allows that he would employ “private” benchmarks in Iraq, a position that may suggest preparation for a shift away from the war. Interestingly, Sen. Sam Brownback (R-Kan.) opposes the Bush escalation, perhaps a signal of an incipient break with hawkish orthodoxy. However, Brownback has a soft spot for humanitarian intervention, having pressed for U.S. action in Darfur, Sudan.
The Democratic field is smaller but more heavily weighted against the war – other than Sen. Hillary Clinton (D-N.Y.). A great disappointment to many Democrats, she has been reluctant to admit error in backing the conflict. She also continues to defend Bill Clinton’s dubious air war against Kosovo and postures as a hawk on Iran. If she felt it necessary to prove that Democrats are “strong” on defense, she could end up as reckless as President Bush. Clinton’s position is of particular concern because she remains a, if not the, front-runner, assisted by her husband, perhaps the finest political mind in the country.
Far better is Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.), who forthrightly opposed the war from the start. Today he appears to be a joint front-runner, though his staying power has yet to be demonstrated. Former Sen. John Edwards admits his mistake in voting for the Bush war authorization. Possible entrant Vice President Al Gore also opposed the war. There are some secondary candidates too, like Rep. Dennis Kucinich (D-Ohio) and Sen. Chris Dodd (D-Conn.), who generally criticize the war.
Economics matters too, of course, but it is hard to enthusiastically support even the most economically freedom-minded candidate if he or she is a warrior wannabe. Among the antiwar candidates, Ron Paul again is the best, genuinely committed to individual liberty, limited government, and constitutional democracy. In contrast to virtually all of his fellow congressman, Rep. Paul actually asks whether there is constitutional warrant for proposed federal regulation and spending.
Sen. Hagel is a moderate conservative, generally for free trade, deregulation, and fiscal responsibility. More centrist than Rep. Paul, Hagel nevertheless would be a significant improvement over the kind of welfare/warfare state governance advanced by the Bush administration. Sen. McCain strongly opposes earmarks, while the credibility of the other GOP contenders generally lags behind on spending issues.
The Democratic candidates fall far further back. Sen. Obama has been a conventional liberal, missing the opportunity to carve out a niche as a genuine new Democrat, for both peace and free enterprise. John Edwards has launched an aggressively populist campaign, one that risks making everyone worse off in the name of promoting greater equality. After losing the 2000 race, Al Gore talked of moving left on economics if he ran again. Sen. Clinton seems little better – depending upon how much of her husband’s legacy she would preserve. None of the likely Democratic also-rans stands out in this regard.
There are other issues, of course, such as civil liberties, especially as affected by the war on terror. In general, critics of the Iraq conflict are more likely to stand against unnecessary attacks on Americans’ freedoms in this area. An odd outlier is John McCain – outspoken critic of torture, for instance, even as he pushes escalation in Iraq and confrontation with North Korea.
President Bush has inadvertently created the perfect election slogan for 2008: Americans can do better. Electing a candidate with the right policy mix won’t be easy, but the next president should support both peace and free enterprise. The American people deserve no less.
