Asim Ali: The Democrats Are Stealing the Republicans' Rhetoric
Asim Ali, in a message posted on H-Peace (Aug. 3, 2004):
I was somewhat surprised by the Kerry/Edwards war rhetoric. As one commentator on PBS (David Brooks?) put it, the Democrats were attacking the Republicans from the right. One reason for doing so was apparently to distance themselves from the the Democratic Party of the Vietnam War era, which is/was accused of being weak. I find this odd, because general sentiment in the US now seems to be that both the Vietnam War, and the Iraq War, were bad ideas. It seems that the somewhat mixed message is that Kerry's strong enough to fight in Vietnam, and wise enough to admit it was a bad idea.
The strangest thing to me about the war rhetoric was how completely the Democrats have adopted Bush's rhetoric, such as the "war on terror," and Bush's statement that he is a "war President" and that the US is "at war." (Has the US actually declared war in either Afghanistan or Iraq?) John Edwards said something to the effect that under Kerry, the US would take the fight to "the terrorists," rather than wait for them to strike. And Kerry said something about never needing permission (from the UN?) to protect America's interests. Those statements seem to ignore the fact that terrorism is itself often "blowback" that results from the US taking the fight to terrorists. It also seems to assume an essentialist notion of what a terrorist is, as if one is simply born that way, and one's political and material situation in life has nothing to do with it. This indicated to me that the Democrats are attacking not with historical facts that may help us understand and prevent terrorism, but with martial rhetoric. It also suggested to me that the Democrats may will willing to adopt the kind of unilateralism--despite Kerry's insistence that he's a multilateralist--that itself has historically fueled anger and violence.
I realize that this list is designed for academic purposes, rather than for discussing current events, and I apologize if my comments are inappropriate. But, if it's not beyond the purview of the list, I would like to ask a related question, specifically of list members who are not in the U.S.: how do people in other countries view the upcoming presidential election in the US? For example, do Canadians tend to see a Kerry administration as returning the US to a more traditional role in the world, or improving relations with Canada, or being more likely to promote world peace?
Asim Ali
Department of American Studies
University of Maryland
I was somewhat surprised by the Kerry/Edwards war rhetoric. As one commentator on PBS (David Brooks?) put it, the Democrats were attacking the Republicans from the right. One reason for doing so was apparently to distance themselves from the the Democratic Party of the Vietnam War era, which is/was accused of being weak. I find this odd, because general sentiment in the US now seems to be that both the Vietnam War, and the Iraq War, were bad ideas. It seems that the somewhat mixed message is that Kerry's strong enough to fight in Vietnam, and wise enough to admit it was a bad idea.
The strangest thing to me about the war rhetoric was how completely the Democrats have adopted Bush's rhetoric, such as the "war on terror," and Bush's statement that he is a "war President" and that the US is "at war." (Has the US actually declared war in either Afghanistan or Iraq?) John Edwards said something to the effect that under Kerry, the US would take the fight to "the terrorists," rather than wait for them to strike. And Kerry said something about never needing permission (from the UN?) to protect America's interests. Those statements seem to ignore the fact that terrorism is itself often "blowback" that results from the US taking the fight to terrorists. It also seems to assume an essentialist notion of what a terrorist is, as if one is simply born that way, and one's political and material situation in life has nothing to do with it. This indicated to me that the Democrats are attacking not with historical facts that may help us understand and prevent terrorism, but with martial rhetoric. It also suggested to me that the Democrats may will willing to adopt the kind of unilateralism--despite Kerry's insistence that he's a multilateralist--that itself has historically fueled anger and violence.
I realize that this list is designed for academic purposes, rather than for discussing current events, and I apologize if my comments are inappropriate. But, if it's not beyond the purview of the list, I would like to ask a related question, specifically of list members who are not in the U.S.: how do people in other countries view the upcoming presidential election in the US? For example, do Canadians tend to see a Kerry administration as returning the US to a more traditional role in the world, or improving relations with Canada, or being more likely to promote world peace?
Asim Ali
Department of American Studies
University of Maryland