MM, I don't think Bradley meant bypassing the government altogether (remember, I was just summarizing what he said). His point, I think, is that we should not IDENTIFY ourselves with the government, and pay more attention, in shaping our policy, to the needs and aspirations of the people than to our perceived need to shore up their government.
For example, in Yeltsin's conflict with Parliament in 1993, we bought his line ("my opponents are all evil Communists") hook, line and sinker. We could/should have remained neutral in that conflict.
Or, in the conflict with Chechnya, we should not have given such whole-hearted support to the government's line that it was only "restoring constitutional order". And certainly should not have compared the conflict to the American Civil War, as Clinton did!
And so forth.
BTW, it was Bush who said that he was well equipped to deal with foreign affairs because he had shaken the hands of so many foreign leaders. True, he had served in China, and as head of the CIA (for a year, and brought in from the outside). But far as I know, he never actually studied international affairs, or wrote about them, or acquired any specific expertise, unlike Bradley. I think you'd have to go back to Nixon to find someone comparable.
Joan |
