[lbo-talk] Bush as the lesser imperialist evil

[Christian Gregory]

>As hypebole, this might pass muster, but in terms of geopolitical analysis, 
the long term strategic goals of the Democrats are fundamentally the same as the 
Republicans, though their methods might differ qualitatively and I don't buy 
the idea that Bush & Co have a Dr. Strangelove complex - any more than the 
Dems do. As to Clinton as the 'humanitarian imperialist' this term is not an 
oxymoron only to the extent that it acknowledges that humanitarianism has 
historically been as much a false pretext for imperialist expansionism as 
latter day WMDs. So your attempt to differentiate Bush from Kerry actually 
masks fundamental similarities.

Whether or not Bush and Co. actually have a "Dr. Strangelove complex" is quite beside the point, since they are electorally beholden to a small, vocal minority who do. And so Bush and Co's actions have to at least look like those with whom they are supposed to agree. The same cannot be said for Kerry--who, as I've said, has made no effort to distinguish himself in this respect, though he could without much political loss. Sooner or later, however, even he would figure this out.

I didn't say there were no similarities between Bush and Clinton or Kerry or the Dems and the Repugs in general. But if what I have to choose from are two brands of imperialism, one that will surely kill more people, cost more money, and threaten the few minimally decent remnants of the welfare state at home than the other, well, you can guess which I'd choose. Electorally, Nader isn't a serious choice; but, good for him and for us, politics do not begin and end with elections.

Christian