Monday, May 10, 2004

Sad but oh so true.
In speeches and ads, Bush and Kerry hammer each other relentlessly, leaving many voters with the impression that they agree on nothing. But stripping away the rhetoric often reveals a convergence of views on major issues. . . .

The Massachusetts Democrat supports a continued American leadership role in securing Iraq, enhanced authority for the United Nations and sending in more U.S. troops to complete the job if needed. So does Bush.

Bush endorsed Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon's plan to unilaterally withdraw from Gaza and, in a controversial step to Arabs, said it should be expected that Israel could keep some settlement blocks in the West Bank as part of a final peace deal. So did Kerry. Both tout greater spending to fight terrorism.

Kerry sells himself as a pro-business, "free but fair" global trader and fan of Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan's monetary policies.
So, on matters of American empire, 'free' trade and monetary policy, Kerry agrees with Bush. The differences are stylistic, not substantive. In fact, the primary Kerry critique now seems to be that Kerry is the more competent and effective man to get Bush's agenda enacted in the world!

Is this just electioneering? Liberals think so; or rather, they are wishing so. Stay tuned for the first installment of my analysis of "Progressive Internationalism" later today on why those liberal hopes may be little more than pipe dreams.


Post a Comment

<< Home