![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
The main difference between the parties when it comes to foreign policy is that the Democrats are willing to smile and nod at the Europeans before ignoring them, whereas the Republicans are more straightforward in expressing their disdain.
I think he is right here.
I think that, as far as the war is concerned, whoever is in the presidential office is going to do essentially the same thing, but what he will say and how widely he will smile to Europeans is another matter. Paradoxically, this might have pushed me towards rooting for a Democratic president (to help Europe to mend its ways with the US and to soothen the scrape marks) precisely because his rhetoric would be, in a sense, counter to his actions. But I do not like politicking and do not like political hypocrisy. Plus, I happen to like the current presidential foreign team, starting with Wolfowitz and other neocons. I am indifferent to Bush, but not prticularly fond of Kerry either.
The result is: if I had been an American citizen, I would have been likely to vote for a Republican president this time.
I think he is right here.
I think that, as far as the war is concerned, whoever is in the presidential office is going to do essentially the same thing, but what he will say and how widely he will smile to Europeans is another matter. Paradoxically, this might have pushed me towards rooting for a Democratic president (to help Europe to mend its ways with the US and to soothen the scrape marks) precisely because his rhetoric would be, in a sense, counter to his actions. But I do not like politicking and do not like political hypocrisy. Plus, I happen to like the current presidential foreign team, starting with Wolfowitz and other neocons. I am indifferent to Bush, but not prticularly fond of Kerry either.
The result is: if I had been an American citizen, I would have been likely to vote for a Republican president this time.
Neocons
I like it that their approach to issues is based, usually, on studying them with an open mind, but not without the ethical component. I think it is better than removing the ethics altogether, but also better than keeping the ethics and dropping the other part. The former is cynical, the latter naive, and neither works well in reality.
This is a vague and not 100% correct picture, of course. More a description of my feelings than thoughts of the subject.
Re: Neocons
Re: Neocons
what issues are you talking about?
Political and social ones. Some are interesting to me, some are important, some neither. For example, race relations (ethnic relations would be a better term, but historically it is called race relations) are interesting and relatively important, whereas affirmative action and the value of diversity are interesting but not important (to me). Foreign affairs are interesting, and those that deal with Israel (and Middle East in general), Russia, as well as the current war with islamist fanatics, these ones are important to me.
Far from a full list of issues, just examples.
What US national interest is best served by the neocon ideology?
I am not sure that national interests are served by an ideology. I do not look at it this way. I am separately looking at how people come to conclusions, and separately at what conclusions they come to. In case of the neocons, as I wrote before, I was originally more impressed by how, and then I found they often had a similar what.
Keep in mind, however, that I am not a neoconservative myself, simply because I am not a conservative, and then, of course, I am not a "thinker" or a pundit or whatever, do not write articles and do not get published. :-)
National interest is the best measure of any foreign policy.
Personal interest is the only measure I can apply.
One: Assuming we agree the US is at war now, there are many questions about how to define the war (is this a "war on terrorism" or a "war of civilizations" etc), what goals to pursue in this war, etc, etc. Two: positioning with respect to the sides in the Israeli-Arab conflict is important to me (separately from the previous issue).
It has been my impression that neocons have strong pro-Israeli leanings, and this is very much in line with my personal attitude. (Both in terms of what and how.) It has also been my impression that neocons tend to look at the present war between the US and the Islamic fanaticism as a big picture, the "strategic versus tactical" approach the Condoleezza advocated :-) , and this, again, looks like a sound position to me.
There are more issues in the foreign policy which are less interesting to me, so I do not know how close I am with the neocons on those issues.
Am I making wrong assumptions, maybe?
I have no idea what assumptions you are making.
The word "neocon" has recently become less precise than it used to be, and I am not sure we are talking about the same things here, but I hope so.
Re: Neocons
Re: Neocons