New Hampshire has refocused the race for president a bit, and now we’re bracing for the contests to come. As I write, another Democratic debate is scheduled for this evening. My hope is that Senator Sanders will have worked out a way of speaking about foreign policy that will make him less of a target on that score. I’m not suggesting that he adopt more hawkish positions – quite the opposite. He just needs to articulate some of the quite nuanced views that he has held for many years. If ever we needed an alternative take on foreign policy, that time is now.
{Later that evening … }
Okay, I did hear some encouraging words from Senator Sanders on war and peace. Not enough, in my opinion, but certainly better than last time. I am glad that he gave some historical perspective to a position that is just as relevant today as it was in the 1950s: the conviction that the United States should not be acting like an empire, overthrowing disobedient regimes whenever we feel like it, bombing wherever we please, always opting early for the sword. Clinton did what she always does – offer a set of proposals that extend the bad policy we are currently implementing. Could Sanders have disagreed more with the underlying premises of her positions? Oh, yes … but you have to pick your fights in a television debate.
It was heartening to hear Sanders call Clinton out on her bragging about being endorsed, in a sense, by Henry Kissinger. I’m very glad he addressed that, because it counteracts Clinton’s attempt at arguing that political fights of previous decades have no bearing on the current policy debate. Kissinger is still a player and continues to undergo a kind of rehabilitation promoted by both Republicans and – shamefully – Democrats. Sanders was right to denounce him as in essence a war criminal, with the blood of many thousands on his hands. Maybe I was in the minority in being gobsmacked by Clinton’s invocation of Kissinger at the last debate – she tried to minimize it a bit during the PBS debate somewhat, but that fell kind of flat.
It’s incumbent upon us, the other America, to push Sanders and, yes, Clinton to the left on these and other issues. We cannot afford to continue these bankrupt policies overseas; if we just accept the comforting lies, we can look forward to another decade or more of pointless war.
luv u,
jp
Starting with the debate, probably the most telling moments of that sorry spectacle were the attacks against the event moderators – the calls of unfairness most effectively delivered by Ted Cruz, who (as Sam Seder has pointed out) really owns that sense of grievance that has become such a central part of the Republican/Tea Party narrative. There goes the “liberal” media, ripping into us after having given the Democrats the kid gloves treatment. Several of them – Christie, Trump, Carson, Huckabee – took turns revealing their inner Gingrich, whining at such a pitch that their grievance grew legs and very nearly derailed the entire GOP debate schedule in the days that followed. Pauvre petit!
Issues wise, we heard a lot of recycled crap about simplifying the tax code. The flat tax is presented as something new; it’s basically Jack Kemp 3.0. The unifying principle is, of course, massive deficits coupled with massive tax savings for the super rich. Sound familiar? Sure it does. Nine, nine, nine, anyone? Yesterday’s nines are today’s “tithing”.