Even with the dust clearing in PA, and the answer to whom will represent the Democrats no more readily available than before the polls closed, one thing is still certain, for the GOP, the future is the past with better weaponry.
With this simple mindset, Senator John McCain and his band of leaders in the GOP have forced a redefinition of what it means to be isolationist. As we here at PD start to examine the older gentleman from Arizona, articles like this play a wonderful secondary role. Jimmy Carter was, under very very few metrics an effective president. His quest for peace may be his most enduring legacy, and his lifetime role in the middle east encompasses the start of the first major policy concerns in that region for Americans on the whole. His recent talks with Hamas perhaps the capstone of his career. These talks have brought the usual rounds of ridicule and anger.
These talks and their predictable response, have also put the neocon foreign policy(the same policy McCain has attached to) in perspective. To this group, talking to a terrorist/political organization is tantamount to America conferring legitimate status upon them. In fact, their belief seems to be, that if we ignore their words and focus solely on condemning their actions, this will undermine and damage these groups. It seems to be a passive aggressive form of isolationist thought, that we control how big of a target we are, by how publicly involved we become. The neocons have taken this to the extreme. In the process they are confronted with legitimizing these groups further, by touting our disdain through transparent and hostile action.
The Democratic response lead by Edwards and Obama and more recently adopted by Clinton has been one of discussion, transparent meetings, and public dissent and negotiation. This approach is currently not viewed approvingly by most Americans, yet its early trials have shown promise, including its ancestors, detente in China, and Reagan with Gorbachev.
Among the many issues we must confront this November is how we, as Americans, want to approach foreign policy in the age of large scale terrorist groups. McCain’s own “strengths” must be evaluated in this manner. Do we want 4 more years of antagonistic, reflexive responses to negative events and pandering to poor nations who don’t know any better? Or should we try to construct better relations, through direct talks and recognition? Jimmy Carter’s life and current work may be the anecdotal evidence to help make that decision.
-Dack
