Democrats, Irrelevant

In this election cycle, politicians eschew debate in favor of an all-things-to-all-people foreign policy posture with Democrats mostly offering a kinder, gentler version of the Bush strategy rather than any real alternatives.

Issue: Nov-Dec 2006

Call me idealistic, but I thought the midterm elections could have been an opportunity for a serious debate about the aims and goals of U.S. foreign policy. Sure, the results matter for who gets to call hearings, fill staff positions, oversee budgets, influence presidential appointments and claim a greater share of the attention of the media and lobbyists; the elections also matter for various politicians eyeing a 2008 presidential bid. They even may prove quite useful for rewriting recent history about the essentially bi-partisan consensus that undergirded Iraq policy-one could say that George W. Bush built on the foundation Bill Clinton laid-even if, in fairness, Democrats might have chosen a somewhat different architecture.

You must be a subscriber of The National Interest to access this article. If you are already a subscriber, please activate your online access. Not a subscriber? Become a subscriber today!