If we needed evidence of the impoverishment of
American politics, the so-called debate between President Barack Obama and Mitt
Romney gave us all we could ask for.
We normally expect a debate to highlight some
disagreement, but in American politics disagreement is reserved for minor
matters. The two parties — actually the two divisions of the uni-party that
represents the permanent regime — agree on all fundamentals. If you need proof,
observe how the establishment media treated Ron Paul, who challenged the
permanent regime’s basic premises on foreign policy, civil liberties, and
monetary control. He dug too deep.
It’s been noted, mostly by humorists, that Romney
continuously expressed his agreement with Obama across a range of issues: drone
warfare, Iran, Afghanistan, even Iraq. He tried to manufacture differences by
suggesting that he would have done more sooner. But this all sounded flaccid;
Romney seemed desperate to draw some contrast with a foreign policy that he
embraces.
What does Romney really believe? Who can say? What
we do know is that he’s taking his foreign-policy advice from a team of
neoconservatives, formerly of the George W. Bush administration, who helped dig
the hole the country is in.
Obama, for his part, defended his record, which
someone other than Romney could have torn to shreds. Obama brags about ending
the occupation of Iraq, yet he forgets that Bush had already signed an
agreement, insisted on by the Iran-friendly Iraqi government, to get out by the
end of 2011. What Obama won’t tell you is that he begged Prime Minister Maliki
to ask U.S. troops to remain. Thankfully, Maliki said no.
Obama of course also mentioned the killing of Osama
bin Laden. Two things about that: First, capture and trial would have been a
better example for the world than summary execution by Navy SEALs. Second, the
enfeebled bin Laden was a has-been by May 2011, having been kicked upstairs
when he started devising impossible “plots.” He was no threat to the American
people.
Someone other than Romney might have pointed out
that Obama’s policy has helped to spread al-Qaeda’s influence beyond
Afghanistan and Iraq. Thanks to the president’s drone warfare — which regularly
murders innocents — and other interventions, there are now al-Qaeda affiliates
or sympathizers in Libya, Syria, Somalia, Yemen, Mali, and elsewhere.
But Romney can’t point this out, because he approves
of Obama’s imperialist policy and drone warfare. He apparently can’t wait until
he, like Obama, gets to personally choose targets from a presidential kill
list.
And then there’s Iran. At the debate, Romney lauded
Obama’s “crippling sanctions” on the Iranian economy. But there is no such
thing as an “economy.” There are only people engaged in buying and selling.
Obama and Romney both say that war against Iran
should be a last resort. But if that is the case, why do they dehumanize the
people of Iran? Sanctions don’t cripple the Iranian economy. Sanctions cripple
people — economically, nutritionally, and in every other respect. They make
life hell for average people, especially children and the elderly. The rulers
suffer least of all.
Both candidates take it for granted that Iran is
working toward a nuclear bomb, and that when it gets one, the American and
Israeli people will be at risk. How many times did Romney say that the country
is “four years closer” to a bomb? Of course, the “debate” moderator, Bob
Schieffer of CBS, never challenged that premise. Like all good network
stenographers, he lets his questions propagandize on behalf of the permanent
regime.
There are two problems with all of this: According
to American and Israeli intelligence, there is no evidence Iran wants a bomb.
Furthermore, even if Iran got one, all it would be good for is deterrence
against continuing U.S. and Israeli domination of the Middle East. No one
seriously thinks the Iranian regime is suicidal. America has thousands of
nukes; Israel has hundreds. So what good would a warhead or two do Iran, even
if it was intent on becoming a nuclear power?
Obama and Romney are both conceited enough to think
a U.S. president can and should orchestrate events in the Muslim world. That
alone is reason enough to reject them both.
About the
author: Sheldon Richman is senior fellow at The Future of Freedom Foundation in
Fairfax, Va., and author of Tethered Citizens: Time to Repeal the Welfare
State. Visit his blog “Free Association” at http://www.sheldonrichman.com/.
Send him email.
This article was published by the Future of Freedom
Foundation.
No comments:
Post a Comment