< < < Date > > > | < < < Thread > > >

Re: Contradictions of an election in an imperialist country/contradictions of reform and revolution

by Bill Mandel

21 November 2000 01:53 UTC


Gore would be a little less worse on domestic affairs than Bush. He 
would be somewhat more worse in terms of resort to war abroad. That is 
the historic record of the Democratic Party, because, as the party of 
those who had to have markets for their cotton before the Civil War 
(and freedom of the seas to import slaves), it was always more 
oriented to foreign affairs. That is why newspapers in Atlanta, 
Birmingham, and Richmond were distinctly more interested in, and 
better informed on, the outside world as late as post-World-War-II 
than those in the North, except for the most important port cities.
          Because the Republican Party came into being over a domestic issue, 
slavery, it has always had a significant isolationist bent. As 
recently as the beginning of the Cold War, ex-President Herbert Hoover 
denounced the American arms build-up, saying there was no way any army 
we could field could reach Moscow unless we kept massive forces in 
Europe permanently. He added that, of course, the Russians could not 
possibly reach the U.S. to conquer it in the face of our all-powerful 
navy.
   It is historical fact that the wars of the past century have all 
come under Democratic presidents: Wilson (World War I, after his 
re-election on the slogan: "He kept us out of war"), FD Roosevelt 
(World War II, which is entirely separate from the question of whether 
it was a necessary war, as I believe to have been the case), Truman 
(Korea), Kennedy and Johnson (Vietnam). So the Bush line, originating 
with Condoleeza Rice, that the U.S. should use its seeming capacity to 
win with insignificant casualties (Iraq and YUgoslavia) and then have 
the peace kept by NATO and/or other countries, is consistent with that 
history.
    The problem is that, except when the U.S. is actively engaged in 
war, Americans vote in virtual disregard of foreign policy issues. 
                                                                                
                                                                                
        William Mandel


< < < Date > > > | < < < Thread > > > | Home