"The Right Angle"

Heidi Parent

You Like Me! (Part 1 of 2)

John Kerry’s “Sally Field” approach to foreign policy

by Heidi Parent
04/01/04

Over the course of the next several months we will hear many political pundits tell us that the most important issue in the upcoming election is the economy, or jobs, or education, or health care, or the environment.

Nonsense.

The most important issue in this election is the War on Terror. How can it not be? The very future of our nation depends on the outcome of this fight. If we lose the War on Terror, every other issue - the economy, jobs, health care, everything - will be impacted. Therefore, it is this issue that should be foremost in voters’ minds this November. And on this issue, we have before us two candidates with two very different plans.

President Bush’s plan is clear – stay on offense by continuing the Bush Doctrine of taking the war to the terrorists and taking preemptive action against countries who are sympathetic to terrorists and their cause.

Senator John Kerry plans to return to the defensive policies of the Clinton Administration, running every decision through the UN and dealing with terrorism primarily as a law enforcement issue. Meaning terrorists are arrested and tried in a court of law only after an attack has occurred. Surely this is the policy preferred by terrorists, since it does not prevent an upcoming attack but instead merely reacts to one. Even at its most successful, it only takes a single terrorist out of action. It does nothing to damage or impede the network behind the attack.

Moreover, there is a question about whether or not Kerry fully comprehends the danger terrorist groups pose. When asked in a debate whether President Bush has overstated the threat of terrorism, as many Europeans believe, Senator Kerry responded, "I think it’s somewhere in between.” (Way to take a stand, John! We’ll have more on that later.) “I think there has been an exaggeration…they are misleading all Americans in a profound way."

But this is just Kerry’s approach to the War on Terror. What about his overall approach to national security? Since the approach he takes will have a profound effect on how he handles the War on Terror, it also deserves scrutiny.

Let’s begin with his actions when it comes to funding our intelligence agencies. Shortly after September 11th Kerry appeared on CBS’ “Face the Nation” and said, "The tragedy is at the moment the single most important weapon for the United States of America is intelligence." He is right, of course; intelligence is a key component in the War on Terror. But when you consider the role that Kerry played in cutting the budgets of these very same agencies, making a statement like this takes Clinton level chutzpah. (Read more about Kerry efforts to cut intelligence funding here: http://commonconservative.com/parent/parent077.html

But perhaps nothing is more revealing about his desired approach to national security and foreign policy than his belief that a president needs to give serious consideration to the preferences and opinions of other countries when making decisions about national security issues, or what I call the Sally Field “you like me” approach to foreign policy. (If you don’t get the reference, read up on your Oscar history.)

Just how seriously Kerry takes the opinions of foreign leaders is apparent in his own words: “I've met with more leaders who can't go out and say this publicly. But, boy, they look at you and say: 'You've got to win this. You've got to beat this guy. We need a new policy.' Things like that."

Now it should come as no surprise that many countries believe that “we,” the U.S., need a new foreign policy. But that opposition doesn’t by definition make their desire correct, or one an American President should simply go along with.

The UK Independent recently published a story that predicted if the world could vote in November, President Bush would lose in a landslide. Thankfully, they cannot and for very good reason - the interests of other countries are not necessarily what is best for America.

Take Iraq as an example. We chose to act and remove Saddam from power in order to make our country more secure. France, to use one example, opposed our action. Not because our actions wouldn’t also make them more secure, but because France had a lot to gain financially by keeping Saddam in power. On this issue, their interests, and the interests of many other UN countries, were not the same as ours. (How much France and others had to gain financially is just now beginning to be revealed. Read here: http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,111541,00.html and here: http://www.nationalreview.com/comment/rosett200403212155.asp for details.) Did their opposition mean we shouldn’t act? Of course not. President Bush made the right decision to act to protect America, even if it meant going against the wishes of an ally.

So contrary to what Kerry supporter, Senator Ted Kennedy, recently claimed on “Meet the Press” (the “responsibility of the President of the United States to is look after the security of the United States and its allies…”), the responsibility of the President is to look after the security of the United States, period. If it also happens to help an ally, that’s just a bonus. The very fact that John Kerry seems eager to please foreign leaders should speak volumes to the kind of President he would be.

In the next issue we will continue this look at John Kerry’s approach to foreign policy. In the meantime, Oscar history awaits.