![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
♠
Once Bush is gone -- and with luck, sooner -- anti-Bush sentiment will lose its polarizing force, its power to bind and exclude. At that point, merely opposing Bush, which many have decided will do for now, will no longer be mistaken for a policy agenda. And not every idea that Bush has defended will be regarded as wrong merely for that reason. A more enlightening debate on foreign policy, taxes and global warming might then begin.
-- Clive Crook for National Journal
Mr. Crook argues for those who favor Republican-ish, conservativey policies that Dubya's incompetence and inadequacy is gravely distorting politics and policy discussions. For instance, on foreign policy:
I am thinking that maybe we are at least fortunate in how liberals and Democrats are finding it easier to unite and marshal forces, particularly when we enter the post-Dubya political world when the debate will be better joined.
xXx
Once Bush is gone -- and with luck, sooner -- anti-Bush sentiment will lose its polarizing force, its power to bind and exclude. At that point, merely opposing Bush, which many have decided will do for now, will no longer be mistaken for a policy agenda. And not every idea that Bush has defended will be regarded as wrong merely for that reason. A more enlightening debate on foreign policy, taxes and global warming might then begin.
-- Clive Crook for National Journal
Mr. Crook argues for those who favor Republican-ish, conservativey policies that Dubya's incompetence and inadequacy is gravely distorting politics and policy discussions. For instance, on foreign policy:
One is Iraq. This ill-founded and appallingly executed war has discredited all of the administration's foreign-policy thinking. I don't mean to defend the administration, but some of that thinking was correct. Bush is right, in my view, that America cannot rely for its security on multilateralism; that the United States should not give other countries veto power over its actions abroad; that global jihadism needs to be forcefully confronted; that pre-emptive action against these new enemies is warranted; and more besides. A calculating, enlightened, and level-headed unilateralism is the right way, in my opinion, for America to conduct itself in the world. Right now, though, what chance is there of a fair hearing for any kind of avowed unilateralism?Seriously, we may be fucked in Iraq, but that does not mean we need to follow the leadership of France.
I am thinking that maybe we are at least fortunate in how liberals and Democrats are finding it easier to unite and marshal forces, particularly when we enter the post-Dubya political world when the debate will be better joined.
