A New York Times article today details the depressingly tepid foreign policy "debate" between the Hillary and Barack camps. It seems the Senators are in disagreement about how best to regain the U.S.'s lost prestige on the world stage. Hillary, trying desperately to appear as hard-headed as any man, insists that there should be preconditions on any diplomatic contact with "dictators" like Ahmednijad or Chavez (Chavez was, unlike our own prez, *elected*, but never mind that for now). Obama, playing good cop, says:
“Our standing in the world has diminished so much because people think that the United States wants to dictate across the world instead of cooperate across the world. When we start sending a signal that we are ready to engage in serious diplomacy, then we’ve got the opportunity to stand before the world and say: We’re back. America is back.”
This ostensibly open-minded approach is what has liberals loving Obama, I suppose. But "'back' to what?", we might ask. We've heard a lot lately about America's diminished prestige. But I've got bad news, folks: America's "standing in the world" has never been very high. Why not? Because we *do* want to "dictate across the world".
We're a country full of mofos who petulantly demand our SUVs and Nike shoes regardless of the cost to the rest of humanity or the planet. None of the Democrats (excepting perhaps Kucinich) is proposing any sort of challenge to that mentality. The "difference" in the philosophies of the candidates -- Democrat and Republican -- amounts to the difference between stealing from the rest of the world with a smile on our face or with a scowl. As Malcolm X once said of liberals vs. conservatives, “One is the wolf, the other is the fox. No matter what, they’ll both eat you.”