Bruce, I agree with the consistency of Bush's message and the desire to export democracy. It's higher risk than anything Clinton would have ever done. Heck, Clinton would have to take a poll before developing any policy and that's not how leadership work. Bush could be regarded in history as a visionary ahead of his time, like Woodrow Wilson was with the League of Nations well before global perspectives were mainstream, if things go well. If things don't go well, I doubt most had high hopes for the Middle East anyhow, so there's probably limited downside.
On the consistency issue, however, has anyone noticed that criticism of China's own human rights and lack of democratic initiatives seem to be completely missing? In terms of freeing the human race of oppressive governments, over a billion people are in that country and we can't even seem to get vocal over the conversion price of a Yuan. I know everybody has to pick their battles, even a president, but I see a big contrast between our ME policy, Condy beating up the Russians and our silence in China. From afar, this contrast must be noticeable in other nations and I don't really have a good idea myself. |
