A kinder, gentler iron fist?
It appears Kerry’s foreign policy isn’t much different from Dubya’s. Oh yes, the US should be less obviously drunken frat-boy obnoxious, but the goal of unquestioned American dominance remains the same. Which, of course, is precisely the attitude that gets the US into such messes in the first place.
Kerry tells anti-war movement to move on
Researchers and investigative reporters are fascinated with the neoconservatives, that group of American empire peddlers who turned George W. Bush into a junkie war criminal. A similar group, the New Democrats, has been pushing its own dangerous brand of U.S. hegemony but with much less fanfare.
The leading mouthpiece for the New Democrats’ radical interventionist program could be our next president. John Kerry, the frontrunner in the quest for the Democratic Party presidential nomination, has been promoting a foreign policy perspective called “progressive internationalism.” It’s a concept concocted by establishment Democrats seeking to convince potential backers in the corporate and political world that, if installed in the White House, they would seek to preserve U.S. power and influence around the world, but in a kinder, gentler fashion than the current administration.
In the battle to control the American empire, the neocons have in their corner the Partnership for a New American Century while the New Democrats have the Progressive Policy Institute. Come November, who will get your vote? Coke or Pepsi?
Just so there’s no illusions Kerry is even remotely antiwar:
Kerry <says> it’s time we stop questioning U.S. foreign policy intentions:
“As a veteran of both the Vietnam War and the Vietnam protest movement, I say to both conservative and liberal misinterpretations of that war that it’s time to get over it and recognize it as an exception, not as a ruling example, of the U.S. military engagements of the twentieth century. If those of us who carried the physical and emotional burdens of that conflict can regain perspective and move on, so can those whose involvement was vicarious or who knew nothing of the war other than ideology and legend.”