From Intention to Reality

As Ilan Goldenberg says it's wrongheaded to give John McCain credit for professing a desire to improve relations with allies and rejoin the international community. It would be perverse to think that George W. Bush actually wanted the United States to become so isolated. The point is that Bush wanted to pursue policies of rogue state rollback and unilateral preventive war that are incompatible with the United States having a strong relationship with its actual and potential allies around the world. And John McCain wants to pursue those exact same policies; indeed, he was making the case for them before Bush was.

What matters isn't what McCain says he wants to accomplish (an enduring peace based on freedom!); we need to be asking what would the actual consequences of his policies be.

Comments

Depends on what "allies" mean. I think John McCain's "League of Democracies" would consist of the U.S., Israel, Micronesia, Marshall Islands, Palau and perhaps Austraila if Howard ever got back getting together to solve international matters.

Posted by Ed Marshall | April 6, 2008 5:46 PM

The simplest explanation for Bush's actions is that he's a mole, a dedicated enemy of the United States. So it's not perverse at all.

Posted by gcochran | April 6, 2008 6:03 PM

It's the same "uniter, not a divider" bullshit. Why should we believe it again? The Democrats are offering tangible differences on foreign policy from the Bush era. McCain is more of the same plus "...but I'll listen to the world, I promise!"

Posted by 55 | April 6, 2008 6:07 PM

Ed Marshall:

Don't forget Bulgaria! You can't have an International League of Democratical Democratic Democracies without Bulgaria!

Are you some sort of anti-Bulgarian bigot, or what?

Posted by RKU | April 6, 2008 6:09 PM

How "isolated" is the U.S. now? This seems like a false meme. Australia is still a close ally, as are Britain, Japan, France, etc. The two world leaders who were the biggest opponents of the invasion of Iraq have been cashiered by their respective electorates and been replaced with leaders who happen to be pro-American (albeit still opposed to the invasion of Iraq. We also have closer relationships now with Eastern Europe and with India.

BTW, speaking of Australia: Its new liberal prime minister met with the editors of the WSJ while he was in New York last week. The meeting left the WSJ editors pining for that sort of center-left politician here in America.

Posted by Fred | April 6, 2008 6:12 PM

The two world leaders who were the biggest opponents of the invasion of Iraq have been cashiered by their respective electorates

Chirac retired, he was not voted out of office. And Sarkozy's ascendancy within Chirac's party had little to do with his pro-Americanness. Nor did Merkel's success have any clear relationship to being pro-American.

Posted by John | April 6, 2008 6:16 PM

Are you some sort of anti-Bulgarian bigot, or what?

You've obviously forgetten about their treachery in voting against our ongoing economic campaign to topple Castro mere miles from our border. Death to Bulgaria.

Posted by Ed Marshall | April 6, 2008 6:22 PM

You mean like the obvious consequences that would come from the stated protectionist policies of Obama and Clinton?

Never mind McCain; how do you think various countries we deal with would react to an actual implementation of the stated desires of those two?

I can tell you this: I was attending a technical conference in the UK recently, filled with people who lean Labor or further left. Most expressed a desire for McCain, on two grounds:

1) Divided government is better for intl relations
2) They don't trust either Democrat on trade relations, based

What you don't get is that the war in Iraq has minimal impact on our relations with other world powers, because it doesn't have any impact on day to day relations. Trade policy though? Huge.

Posted by James Robertson | April 6, 2008 6:56 PM

I think this post is about 80% right, but it's misleading to say that Bush doesn't positively want to antagonize allies. He clearly likes bullying and wrongfooting people, and his approach from the outset has been 'my way or the highway'. I doubt that McCain has these characteristics, or has them to the same extent.

Posted by J | April 6, 2008 7:21 PM

I think this post is about 80% right, but it's misleading to say that Bush doesn't positively want to antagonize allies. He clearly likes bullying and wrongfooting people, and his approach from the outset has been 'my way or the highway'. I doubt that McCain has these characteristics, or has them to the same extent.

Posted by J | April 6, 2008 7:22 PM

speaking of Australia: Its new liberal prime minister met with the editors of the WSJ while he was in New York last week. The meeting left the WSJ editors pining for that sort of center-left politician here in America.

e. g., a white male . . .

Posted by rea | April 6, 2008 7:38 PM

"e. g., a white male . . ."

I doubt the editors of the WSJ are as race-obsessed as Democratic primary voters.

Here is a link to the WSJ's editorial, "Left, Right, and Down Under". And here is an excerpt:

Mr. Rudd is equally clear-eyed on economic issues. He inherited from John Howard the best economy in memory and doesn't intend to squander it. Sounding very much like his predecessor, he promises to reform welfare and cut taxes. Remember: Mr. Rudd is a man of the political left.

Finally, Mr. Rudd understands, in a way that must come naturally to someone whose country relies heavily on commodity exports, the benefits of free trade. As he told a Manhattan audience after our interview, "The successful conclusion of the Doha Trade Round would give the global economy a much needed psychological boost at a time when there is a heightened risk of protectionism." He added that "I was pleased that President Bush and I saw eye-to-eye on this point."

We only wish Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama would see eye-to-eye with Mr. Rudd on the subject, too. And while we'll cheerfully admit to our own disagreements with Mr. Rudd – especially on a cap-and-trade "solution" to global warming – it's good to be reminded that there is such a thing as a responsible left. America could use more of it.

Posted by Fred | April 6, 2008 7:52 PM

Wow, we got 2 mentions in a post that wasn't even about Aus. Good on us :)

A quick point to Ed though, Howard isn't coming back. He isn't even in parliament anymore (in Aus we don't have a seperate executive and legislature, the PM is the leader of the legislature, so imagine if Nanci Pelosi lost her congressional seat, and think how influential she'd be as a leader of congress).

Its nice to hear someone (Fred) noticed Rudd was in town. But I wouldn't say the defining characteristic of Rudd isn't so much that he's centre left. Its a commitment to rational policy. He's a technocrat and policy wonk, not an ideologue. He's also a professional diplomat and China expert so he wants to have a big presence on the international arena and I guess he sees the main area he can have an affect is US China relations.

Posted by Domino | April 6, 2008 7:57 PM

It's amazing the kneejerk reactions Al and Fred have to ANYTHING Matt says that is even mildly critical of McCain.

McCain is a flaming, deluded, ignorant idiot who will probably be the worst President In US history - possibly not as bad as Giuliani would have been, but almost certainly worse than Bush, if that's possible. It's a virtual certainty that he will start wars which will drain the US military and the US economy into disaster.

But for Al and Fred, he's the best they could hope for.

You can't make this stuff up, folks.

As for Bush being a bully and McCain not, do note that McCain was referred to as "The Punk" in his school days. He's also known for being hot-headed with an anger management problem. Yes, he will be a bully. Bush is a sullen bully, McCain will be a violent bully. The latter is worse.

And as I pointed out in an earlier thread, Bush at least has "handlers" like Cheney. McCain doesn't seem to, although I'm sure there are powerful people who have some level of control over him. The danger is that McCain will go off the rails, even against the advice of more powerful people.

The man is truly a danger to the entire country.

Posted by Richard Steven Hack | April 6, 2008 8:22 PM

It would be perverse to think that George W. Bush actually wanted the United States to become so isolated.

Yes, but there is a significant portion of conservatives who think that they hate us anyways so nothing much really matters there.

Posted by SAO | April 6, 2008 11:22 PM

What's clear is that the consequences of the national security and foreign policy decisions have been costly.
http://acropolisreview.com/2008/03/john-mccains-iraq-war-five-year.html

Posted by Tina | April 6, 2008 11:34 PM

You say:

"It would be perverse to think that George W. Bush actually wanted the United States to become so isolated."

Call me a pervert, then. I think Bush and his minions view this as a badge of honor. They view themselves as international John Waynes -- strong, silent, going it alone.

Posted by Egypt Steve | April 7, 2008 8:14 AM

It's amazing the kneejerk reactions Al and Fred have to ANYTHING Matt says that is even mildly critical of McCain

I didn't even post on this thread. Geez.

And it's good to see Paul Rudd is in town - I always liked him in Clueless.

Posted by Al | April 7, 2008 10:04 AM

Proposing being loved by friends and neighbors and being unconstrained by their opinion in any way is a perfect example of the cliche, "Having your cake (to look at) and eating it, too."

You may want both, but you can not realistically have both.

I mean, I guess you could have two cakes. Well, yeah, maybe Bill Kristol has a point...

Posted by Chuck | April 7, 2008 10:13 AM