You may remember my review of Thomas Friedman's article earlier in the week. The one about how President Bush's acceptance of nationa building as a necessity during this war parallels President Lincolns acceptance of emancipation after Gettysburg.
Well Suzanne Fields read the same article, and apparently agreed with it so much she decided her article this week should basically rip it off. But she doesn't just rip off Friedmans thesis. Nope she carries it even further.
"Lincoln thus had greatness thrust upon him. By expanding his vision to preserve the Union to include freeing the slaves, he was poised to fulfill the promise articulated in the Declaration of Independence, that all men are created equal.
George W. Bush campaigned in 2000 against nation-building, just as Lincoln had distanced himself from the abolitionists in 1860, but circumstances changed."
Hmmmmmm. But there are a few differences between the men as well. Lincoln did actually believe in abolitionism before becoming President. He distanced himself from the Abolitionists because he didn't feel that, as President, he had the power to free slaves.
President Bush's attacks on nation building are both more heartfelt and more cynical. It is clear that before September 11th, President Bush's Foreign Policy was marked by a desire to reject everything "Clinton-esque." Part of that was nation building, but make no mistake, when he attacked the idea of nation building, he meant it.
I find myself wishing, if President Bush were to find himself changing during this war, why not bring back the idea endorsed by both Clinton and George H. W. Bush of multilateralism. Why not return honestly to the United Nations? Why allow the Pentagon to give all those who might become our allies the finger (by refusing to allow them contracts in Iraq)? But I suppose that's not for me to wonder.
No comments:
Post a Comment