Foreign Policies
One of the most important issues to consider in a national election is “international affairs.” Much like “domestic affairs” -- with which there is significant overlap -- the manner in which a US President, and his/her team, approaches the rest of the world influences the quality of life in America. However, it influences different groups of US citizens in very different ways. Too often, in my humble opinion, we are provided -- by the candidates, their campaigns, their opponents, and the media -- to a highly inaccurate picture of the impact of foreign affairs.
Perhaps the single best resource for illustrating the different impact that foreign affairs has on various people in the US is found in Vincent Bugliosi’s 2008 classic, “The Prosecution of George W. Bush for Murder.” He contrasts the pain and suffering of thousands of American families -- as well as Iraqi families -- with the obscene, glib behavior of a president who enjoyed watching violence from afar.
Clearly, the manners in which Americans experienced the war in Iraq is distinct. In the layers between those dealing with the tragic, and a president who was clearly sexually aroused by gore and bloodshed, there were many raking in millions of dollars -- even billions -- from this unprovoked invasion of a weak foreign nation.
One of the things that both Barack Obama, in 2008, and Bernie Sanders, in 2016, have spoke of in their campaigns is that then-Senator Hillary Clinton voted to give George W. Bush and Dick Cheney the power to invade Iraq militarily, in a vote that ended any chance that the UN Inspectors could have completed their study, and documented that there were no WMDs in Iraq. Both point out that it’s essentially an issue of “judgment.”
That is true. However, to be fair, despite knowing better, a heck of a lot of other Democrats in Washington, DC -- in theory there to represent you and I -- cast the exact same vote. Again, to be fair: most of those Democrats were simply spineless cowards, concerned only with maintaining the comfort of their elected office. And, they refused to step up and oppose the President …..and those interests that were intent upon exploiting the war for massive financial gain.
I believe that in other elected Democrat’s defense, it could be accurately attributed to “political ideology” -- as much as to “judgment,” and more so than cowardice. And that brings us to a split among Democrats, that began in 1967, and has continued until this day. We rarely talk about it here on DU:GDP, and the few times it has been, the discussion soon degenerates into name-calling.
Even in discussing it here, in as factual a manner as I can, it is possible some people will react with an emotional post. I think passion about politics is great, so long as it doesn’t involve insults and name-calling. For, as the great Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan -- a gentleman who celebrated St. Patrick’s Day -- is often quoted: “You have the right to your own opinion, but not your own facts.”
I have mixed feelings about Senator Moynihan. Actually, much like Ted Kennedy, I think he was a good fit in the US Senate, but I’m glad he never became president. I say that as a life-long Kennedy Democrat. I think it’s fair to believe that even within our party, there are not only people with different talents, but times that call for specific candidates. No one should be called a “disloyal” party member for thinking in this manner. No one.
Speaking of Senator Moynihan, he was a neoconservative. This allowed him to function in both Democratic and republican presidential administrations equally well. Now, my accurately referring to old Daniel Patrick as a neoconservative might cause an emotional response in some here. This is largely due to a specific, republican cluster of neoconservatives that served under several recent republican presidents. And those fellows -- for example, Dick Cheney -- had the same neoconservative ideology, but were obviously far more aggressive about threatening to, and using, the military.
To understand the beginning of neo-conservatism, one needs to learn about two events that ignited it within the Democratic Party in 1967. The first was Dr. Martin Luther King’s combining of the civil rights and anti-war movements, in his April 4 speech at the Riverside Church. That’s the primary domestic issue. The international event was the Six Day War in the Middle East. Again, Dr. King spoke of the conflict between advocating a non-violent approach to dispute resolution domestically, while advocating massive military strikes and interventions to resolve conflicts abroad.
That was among several major divisions within the Democratic Party. It wasn’t the only one, of course. But it is one that is still present today, and is creating a serious divide within our party in the form of the primary contest. The simple truth is that, under the umbrella of the Democratic Party, there are different ideologies, and very different value systems. And it includes very different understandings of the many connections between US foreign and domestic policy. These include everything from domestic unemployment and international trade policies, to trying to reduce gun violence in the US, while selling weapons, directly or indirectly, to nations and other groups. It includes renewable energy and foreign wars that never end.
Neoconservatism simply means a liberal domestic policy, with a strong military “defense” around the globe, with a special relationship to one nation in the Middle East. And it has included an on-going focus on Central America since 1981.
The Bernie Sanders campaign advocates a combination of a strong national defense -- it is really foolish to argue that any candidate doesn’t -- but with more emphasis on non-violent dispute resolution. Simply put, warfare should be the last option.
For many good, intelligent Democrats, Bernie Sanders has not adequately addressed some foreign policy issues. This is a valid concern, and one we should be able to discuss like rational human beings.
For many good, intelligent Democrats, Hillary’s past actions, and current positions, have convinced them that as president, she would continue the machine’s aggressive military policies. This is a valid concern, and one that we should be able to discuss like rational human beings.
Thanks for reading an old man’s ramblings. I hope that people will consider this worthy of a serious discussion.
Peace,
H2O Man
= new reply since forum marked as read
I can have a rational discussion when one presents itself. 
Here is a good article discussing Sanders' foreign policy realism
http://www.thenation.com/article/bernie-sanders-the-foreign-policy-realist-of-2016/
Here is a foreign policy report card from The American Conservative
http://www.theamericanconservative.com/articles/a-2016-foreign-policy-report-card/
And to head off the attacks on me for referencing The American Conservative, I'm in no way endorsing them on social or domestic policy, however the foreign policy approach of paleocons is certainly much less adventurous, interventionist and imperialistic than the neocons.
Here is a younger Bernie on US policies in Latin America:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/12511461355
And a current Bernie:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/12511517080#post5
http://www.ontheissues.org/2016/Bernie_Sanders_War_+_Peace.htm
