Make HuffPost Your HomePage
Get Email Alerts
Hillary: 1, McCain: 0
Hillary Clinton and John McCain unfurled their foreign policy agendas in the November/December issue of Foreign Affairs. Hillary used her essay to move her position further away than ever from the Neo Cons' "democratize the world by Monday" position. McCain, instead, showed that he forgot nothing and learned less. (Other candidates have preceded them or will follow. For a discussion of the position taken by Barack Obama in his Foreign Affairs article, click here).
Senator McCain's new essay could have been written by a Neo Con in 1995, 2000, or maybe even late as 2003. But even in those days, it would have taken an extremely untutored politician to hold that nations can be democratized in short order, especially where the sociological conditions are not well prepared. The title of McCain's essay says it all: "An Enduring Peace Built on Freedom." As he sees it, "the protection and promotion of the democratic ideal, at home and abroad, will be the surest source of security and peace for the century that lies before us." Well, if wishes would be horses, beggars could ride.
McCain touts the successes achieved on the democracy-promotion front by the Bush administration and calls for more of the same. He praises the "historic elections" in Afghanistan. He calls for adopting various economic punitive measures to reverse Russia's "diminishing political freedoms ...". More broadly, McCain would pursue a revival of the Cold War agenda of "democratic solidarity"; he calls for establishing a "League of Democracies" to "serve as a unique handmaiden of freedom". He seems not to have noted that this is exactly what Madeleine Albright tried to do during the Clinton years--to little avail
McCain proceeds by saying that, once elected, he would "seize the opportunities afforded by the unprecedented liberty and prosperity in the world today to build a peace that will last a century." Excuse me, Senator? Are you referring to the military junta in Burma? The election of Hamas in Palestine? The crumbling of democracy in Latin America? Did you forget the bitter experiences of nominal democratization in Iraq and Afghanistan? And did you forget Iran, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Syria? And what about the regimes that followed the popular uprisings in the Ukraine and Kyrgyzstan? Or maybe you are thinking about Tajikistan and Kazakhstan? An old man might be entitled to become lost in rosy fantasies, but not a man who seeks to lead us in a cruel and harsh world.
The title of Hillary's essay is revealing : "Security and Opportunity for the Twenty-first Century". That is, she puts security first, which is where it belongs.
I have spent too many hours with Hillary, in White House dinners, at the Renaissance Weekend, and elsewhere to be a starry-eyed fan. Still, this essay nails it. She writes: "as we know at home and as we see today in Iraq and Afghanistan, opportunity cannot flourish without basic security." Her use of the term "basic" is essential. We previously defined it as "... the conditions under which most people, most of the time, are able to go about their lives, venture onto the street, work, study and participate in public life (politics included), without acute fear of being killed or injured--without being terrorized. To seek full-fledged security, to obviate all threats, to end fear, puts us on the slippery slope at the bottom of which is a police state." (See www.securityfirstbook.com).
Clinton recognizes that forming a Muslim democracy in Afghanistan is a "daunting task". In Iraq, her policy would call for "helping Iraqis, not propping up the Iraqi government." Regarding Russia, although she criticizes Putin's repressive policies, Clinton would focus first of all on issues that concern security; ours, theirs and that of others. She would put high priority "on issues of high national importance, such as thwarting Iran's nuclear ambitions, securing loose nuclear weapons in Russia and the former Soviet republics..."
In general, although Clinton views the promotion of democracy and freedom as a central component of US global leadership, she argues that "we must return to a pragmatic willingness to look at the facts on the ground and make decisions based on evidence rather than ideology." The contrast with McCain could not be clearer. At least in this round, Hillary takes gold; McCain - a wooden nickel.
****
Amitai Etzioni is Professor of International Relations at the George Washington University and the author of Security First: For A Muscular, Moral Foreign Policy (Yale University Press).
www.securityfirstbook.com
Comments for this post are now closed
Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to
I find it incomprehensible that people continue to equate capitalism with democracy, when, in fact, it's the antithesis. Of course the Right will always conflate the two, but capitalism must be supported by armed might, such as our incursions into any number of LatinAmerican nations in order to take down budding democracies so that capitalism can continue to exploit their resources, land and people. Why does this fallacy continue unchallenged at this late point in time?
When did Americans go from human beings to human buyings?
Was it TV? The advertising that tells us we'll be happy once we buy...
Was it Big Box stores and the global economy?
The Dollar Store full of pre-landfill crap?
SUV soccer mom?
These are the values that merged democracy and capitalism.
Re: McCain's position statement....I think we in the U.S. and the world at large have had all the "seizing of opportunities" we can stand for awhile.......tm
What we need more than anything is a President who is a hippo-hipped, hypocritcal quasi-spouse of a sexual preditor. Of course we probably don't need a militaristic jingoist who became a "war hero" by sitting in a hole for six years, either. What we need is someone who is not running, and I have no idea who that might be. James Webb, maybe.
mr. etzioni apparently thinks supplanting neo-conservatism with neo-liberalism and neo-imperialism will be an improvement on our current sad state. and it might be... for the corporate interests, defense contractors, etc.. but for the rest of us - you know, the citizens of this country and the citizens of the world - it's going to be another painful and tragic disaster.
The men of BOTH political parties are ganging up on Hillary these days. They are hating the notion of a woman President. They are DEMANDING Hillary be precise on predicting what she MIGHT do in the future on IRAQ and social issues even if the future of a year from now isn't quite that predicable. She is accused of not being PRECISE as if she needs to be a SEER of events and have solutions NOW.
IF Hillary isn't elected president I don't see another woman in the race for another 50 years. It will be discouraging to women in this country knowing the most experienced, a genius could not be elected because of prejudiced country of people.
Phew! What is that awful stench? Now I know. The "gender" card. A genius you call HRC. You're bar must be so low that a low grade moron would qualify. Nothing new with Hillary. A power hungry, meglomaniacal, two faced, member of the Bush/Clinton cabal.
I think perhaps there are better qualified women out there and I for one wouldn't hesitate to support one as I have supported numerous female candidates in the past. It just won't be Hillary. You can bet your last dime on that.
If you think there are better qualified women, name one.I have heard this argument to many times about women, blacks etc. Every time one runs there is always one better that you would support. There may be a lot of negatives about HRC but right now at this time we need some one that can hit the ground running, so to speak.With her and Bill's experience and contacts both domestically and Internationally I do not see a better candidate that could bring about the imediate change of direction that this country needs both at home and abroad. I find it interesting that 61% of men in this country would not vote for a women president.I am a man and men have been running this country for 231 years and have made a terrible mess. I for one am tired of the good ole' boy mentality in this country.
McCain is the past and Hillary is the future. The presence of Bill Clinton scares the hell out of the Republicans and with a favorable Congress and Senate
we will go backj to transparency in government because the stakes are too high for any more of the Bush/Cheney type of governmant and secrecy. I can hear the shredders working day and night in all branches of the
corrupted and inept agencies run by cronies of the war profiteers running the show. How many more will write books of their regrets in not coming forward sooner and get absolution ?
TR;
How disappointing!
It is not that she is a woman, it is the baggage she brings with her. As for other women more than qualified, you have to look no further than Maine or California to find a woman thats much more suited for the position. Where do you think all that money comes from? She owes too many favors.
"It is not that she is a woman, it is the baggage she brings with her."
There ya go -- in a nutshell, the Repugs' strategy should Senator Clinton (she has a last name - whodathunkit?) win the nomination. To wit: they're going to be rehashing the 1990s over and over and over and over and over and over and over again.
Hopefully it will blow up in their faces. If it doesn't and the US electorate lets itself be suckered once again, than the US deserves whatever it gets. Unfortunately, that will swamp quite a few boats in the rest of the world as well.
Well, didn't W also bring a lot of "baggage" with him? Like all those daddy-doesn't-love-me and alcoholic-needing-enabling issues? Seriously, the people elected Gore, instead we got an appointed spoiled little brat who represents maybe .01% of the super-rich class.
Ugh! Unbelievable we have 59M Bush voters and that some are even still supporters. He doesn't represent anything EXCEPT his baggage and favours owed!
The gender card - well it will be played because for once there is actually a credible woman candidate.
Am I supporting her? No. Am I biased - I hope not because I am a woman.
Why am I not supporting her - because she is not the best candidate. Over this past year of campaigning, I have lost most of my respect for her due to her triangulating and hedging on the tough questions - she looks a lot like Joe Lieberman in that respect.
Unfortunately, and I wish this weren't true, if she loses, it WILL set the cause of a woman president back because all the pundits and most men and many women too will all say the reason she lost is "because she is a woman". The real reason she may/could lose is because of her positions on a whole variety of issues. She used to be a down-in-the-trenches advocate for families and children. I sure wish she would get back to her "roots". That position could inform almost everything being debated today and then she would be on the "correct" side.
lokywoky, Oh how I miss gals like Ann Richards, Molly Ivens, and Barbara Jorden, any of whom I would have been very happy to support for public office. We do have a pretty fair gal here in MN, name of Amy Klobuchar. Haven't agreed with all her positions but she's pretty good.
1. NO
2. Yes
Venezuela and Bolivia are democracies - far more so than the United States has been in decades. And the "election of Hamas in Palestine" is, by definition, an exercise in democracy. People naturally embrace democracy when given the opportunity, and do so "in short order". The fact that the US government *doesn't* like the outcomes in other countries shows that democracy is genuinely working.
The US has no credibiity as a "promoter" of democracy - both because its own form of democracy is thoroughly corrupt, and because in pursuing its commercial interestd since the Second World War, it has been far more active in stamping out democracy and prosperity.
At last somebody tells the truth: "since the Second World War". Having claimed to have 'won' the war America has ever since equally falsely claimed that war is a solution.
America!!!Get real!!!
Korea, Vietnam, Contra, Iraq, Afghanistan, etc. never mind the disasterous African episodes, so many other manipulated killings and of course Israel.
We have won the cold war.
Ha Ha Ha!!
It is never you it is always them.
Ha Ha Ha!
You are war mongers and do not even know the difference between propaganda and diplomacy. Your government directs enormous amounts of money to the end of keeping you confused. your politicians are past masters of the art. They even confuse themselves.
Yet it is all so simple: peace is the Way, brothers, and until you see that you are doomed for even if you 'win' the wars you will have to distrust your brother, including sister Clinton.
You are at the crossroads.
Mark the confusion in this gem.
"I don't know how you pursue al-Qaida without engaging them in combat," Senator Clinton in the recent debate.
What does it mean?
I don't know how you fight them without engaging in combat.
A presidantial candidate?
Duh!
You got it Midafo. Neither McCain or HRC ever will.
Prof Etzioni's views are a faint veil of his support for Senator Clinton's candidacy. She has been questioned by her Democratic competitors on her votes on Iraq and Iran and instead of comparing her acumen to them , we get this ludicrous side by side comparison with Mr. Hawk supreme, Senator John McCain. Let's face it, she is weak on foreign policy and will have to rely heavily on others to make decisions, just as she did before with those votes, usually making a calculated political choice. When you are in charge, you usually don't get to see what everybody else did before you have to act. This continues to be a sticking point that clouds the public's view of her judgment. This article is "full of sound and fury signifying nothing."
And her "security first" statement sounds a lot like the excuses that have been given since the end of WWII when the US supported tyrants and even encouraging would-be tyrants to overthrow insufficiently "secure" democracies (e.g., Chile, etc.). Which is worse: attempting to impose democracy at the barrel of a gun or inflicting "security" on a country by installing a vicious tyrant?---decidedly different positions but both are doomed to failure.
how many faces does the woman have??? so far we have seen five or six but, still not one i want to vote for.
Professor Etzioni writes, "That is, she puts security first, which is where it belongs."
Sure you didn't intend to write, "That is, she puts Security First, which is where it belongs"?
What planet did John McCain just come from? He has to be newly arrived on earth, if his vision of "life as he sees it" is to be believed.
You ever get the feeling that everyone's got way better weed than you can get?
Reading his comments on the glorious state of world affairs makes me yearn for Baghdad Bob to counterpoint.
How many countries has McCain threatened to bomb back into the stone age? I have lost the count.
poopdeck writes, "How many countries has McCain threatened to bomb back into the stone age? "
None so far, although he did do a pretty tasteless parody-type rendition of a classic Beach tune by substituting the words, "Bomb-bomb-bomb ---- bomb-bomb-Iran".
If Venezuela didn't have oil, would we give one flying crap about democracy in that country?
Saw a bumper sticker yesterday that really made me laugh: "be nice to the USA or we will bring democracy to YOUR country".......how sad yet true.....especially if you happen to have oil.
lets invade Cuba and get their health care system and any oil that happens to be laying around.
The poster seems to have missed(?) the neozioncon portions of hrc's paper.
Let me help.
e.g. torture:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/rj-eskow/if-i-had-a-beer-with-hill_b_39363.html
Instead of attacking torture - a position our generals would have us take to protect our troops, and one that reflects our American values - she went for the pro-torture position advocated by Alan Dershowitz. That is, she said that some "severity" (waterboarding, etc.) is justified under extreme circumstances (the utterly discredited 'ticking time bomb' scenario), so there should be a "lawful authority" (i.e. a torture court) to provide "checks and balances."
Then Bill Clinton weighed in with the same position, That move delighted Dershowitz
So I would ask Sen. Clinton to speak to America's generals about torture. I'd suggest she speak to the intelligence experts who remind us that the information collected during torture is rarely usable, especially when time is limited. And I'd want her to consider the many leaders who have said America's lost its position as a world influence leader because of its use of torture.
e.g. ME 'peace' process:
http://www.jta.org/cgi-bin/iowa/news/article/20070912hillaryjerusalem.html
In her new position paper on Israel, Hillary Rodham Clinton comes not only to praise the Jewish state but to bury doubts that she would be any less vigilant in its protection than the Bush administration.
The position paper goes so far as to outflank President Bush from the right.
It says Clinton, "believes that Israel"s right to exist in safety as a Jewish state, with defensible borders and an undivided Jerusalem as its capital, secure from violence and terrorism, must never be questioned."
Clinton's paper comes at a time when the Bush administration is quietly pressing the Israelis and the Palestinians to come up with a final-status outline ahead of a November peace conference, one that would address, among other issues, redrawn borders and a shared Jerusalem.
Spokesmen for Clinton denied that the language was timed to undercut the latest initiative.
"believes that Israel"s right to exist in safety as a Jewish state, with defensible borders and an undivided Jerusalem as its capital, secure from violence and terrorism, must never be questioned."
Sounds good to me.
except for the 'undivided jerusalem' part...
Does anyone know if they actually write this stuff themselves, or do they have grad-school aides write it?
It'd be interesting to look at writing styles...
I'm all for spreading democracy, but the brand of democracy the United States tends to export is Imperialist Democracy ... in other words, we tend to deliver democracy to the world through covert CIA, or military actions. Then the Nation which is the focus of this democratization has to accept the United State's design of democracy, which generally ignores the self-determination of people we are trying to liberate, while empowering the interests of the United States in the target nations. That's not democracy ... that's NeoColonialism.
Mr. Etzioni, you mention the collapse of democracy in Latin America, but how do you define collapse? The people of Venezuela elected Chavez and International observers said the election was clean. You mentioned Bolivia, was there fraud in that election? There was just an election in Argentina, in fact there have been elections all across Latin America ... I think that can be defined as democracy. The United States might not like the leaders being chosen in Latin America, anymore than they appreciated Hamas winning their election, or Hezbollah winning seats in Lebanon, but it isn't the duty of people in other countries to elect governments to please Washington.
I think democracy is growing in a healthy way around the World, but it just isn't the United States brand of democracy, or what the United States brand of democracy has tragically become.
Superb point FogBelter and it is a hallmark of all Republican Presidencies! Be it Reagan or Bush Jr., if they do not like the person elected in a Country, they declare that Country and regime, "undemocratic"! A read on "Iran Contra" is a must to understand how these sick minds work!
As for Hillary, her entire career, her Foreign Policy and Domestic ideas/notions, her campaigns and her governance are all well thought through! She actually studies and researches before making a decision one way or the other! Even her Repuglican colleagues attest to the fact that she is one of the hardest working Senators and especially vis-a-vis her role on various committees
What a refreshing difference it will be in/with her Presidency as we are so used to the current DUMBocracy that the incumbent has bestowed upon Americans ...
PRECISELY comment goes under FogBelter comment.
Precisely.
Her entire career and her governance, You've got me reaching for that barf bag again. And exactly what experience does she have in foreign affairs, global policy, etc, And that last one "studying" anything.
Is that why she's been a Bush lap puppy all this time? Or didn't YOU study the subject enough?
A "refreshing difference". Different from WHAT? You'd better rethink that position buddy. You want another four years of Bush then you go right ahead.
Loading comments…
After its bonus payments ignited a firestorm of...
I'm pleased to announce the launch today of two new HuffPost...
After a three-night stay in Moscow, the Obamas touched down in Rome on Wednesday so Papa President...
How would you like to live in the White House? Take the HuffPost Poll of World Leaders' Residences...
UPDATE: Paris Jackson also spoke. Watch her moving...
I was sorry to watch, live on CNN, Edward R. Murrow and Emmy Award-winning broadcaster and...
The following post...
It was with interest that I read Dr. Soram Khalsa's post on The Huffington Post...
Yesterday evening, Greg Sargent reported on The Plum Line that one of Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin's key reasons...
Below are photos from Michael Jackson's memorial, with Mariah Carey, Lionel Richie, Smokey Robinson,...
OH NOES! What happened on Fox and Friends today, people?
It's been a rocky year for Letterman and Palin. He joked...
I'm liveblogging the latest Iran election fallout. Email me with any news or thoughts, or follow me...
MADISON, Wis. (AP) -- Oscar G. Mayer, retired chairman of the Wisconsin-based meat processing company that bears his name,...
It's summer, the time for weddings! A few of my friends are getting married this summer and fall, so lately...
SYDNEY — Residents of a rural Australian town hoping to protect the earth and their wallets...
I get many letters like this from readers...
Posted October 30, 2007 | 10:47 AM (EST)