Kerryís foreign policy: topic of the day not just for me

ìKerry Must-Sell: A Tough Foreign Policy: He Seeks to Portray Party as Steadier Than G.O.P,î by Roger Cohen, New York Times, 28 July, p. A1.

ìKerryís Foreign Policy: Broad but Vague: Strategy Is to Present a Small Target for Bush, While Emphasizing Vietnam Record,î by Carla Anne Robbins, Wall Street Journal, 28 July, p. A4.

ìA Nostalgia For The Consensus Of the 1990s,î by John F. Harris, Washington Post, 29 July, p. A1.

ìThe Wrong Way to Be Right,î by Richard Cohen, WP, 29 July, p. A23.

The flip-flop charge against Kerry on foreign affairs simply does not stick, but itís basically all the Bush camp can come up with since Kerry basically agrees with the broad outline of Bush foreign policy (fight a global war on terrorism, no pull-out in Iraq or Afghanistan, and reserving the right for preemptive war). All Kerry promises is that he will do the job better, and given the state of U.S. standing in the world, thatís a fair argument to make.

Not just the Democrats, but basically the entire American public is looking for a return to at least some of the consensus we seemed to have as a nation in the 1990s. Key to that consensus was fiscal responsibility in the federal budget, a strong commitment to free trade, and a sense that U.S. alliances around the world were not only stronger, but getting stronger and larger with time.

The rule-set reset triggered by 9/11 created some expenses that arenít easily wished away, and yet a lot of the spending weíve engaged in for domestic security purposes isóI would argueóway overboard. Itís been a real feeding frenzy and the Republicans have turned on the federal spigot in a way thatís both amazing and fairly scary. Even the plus-up on defense wasnít that warranted, because the challenge the Pentagon faces is more one of rebalancing that buying. Yes, the wars have cost, but a much better sales job on that could have been done. Remember, Bushís dad pulled offówith Jim Bakerís helpóDesert Storm at a profit in terms of international financial support. Strange to say it, but it seems like we need to return the Democrats to the White House in order to get federal spending under control.

On the commitment to free trade, there the Bush White House still looks better than anything coming out of the mouths of Kerry and Edwards. Is much of that election-year nonsense? Yup. Is most of it unnecessary given the passion of the hard left to remove Bush from power? Yup. So itís a complete waste of time and sets bad expectations.

On the alliances question, here the Bush White House has much to answer for. There is no doubt that we have fewer allies and friends than we did four years ago, so the Bush Administration needs to sell the public on how they are going to reverse that very negative trend.

Why be so demanding with the current administration? After all, we were told by the Bush camp in 2000 that the governorís lack of foreign policy experience would be balanced by all his ìwise menî and Condi Rice, but look at the diplomatic track record. Thereís nothing in this GWOT effort that mandates we scare the hell out of the rest of the world or alienate key allies. If weíre really right, and I believe we are, then we ought to be able to bring the rest of the Core with usónot just the Brits. Kerry is the diplomatís son, just like Bush, but Kerry has spent two decades in the Senate specializing in foreign affairs, and that experience is both laudable and sellable in this election. Too nuanced? Too smooth-talking? The Bush camp better come up with tougher charges than that, because many Americans are looking for exactly those sort of characteristics after four years of with-us-or-aígin-us!

Then again, I agree with Richard Cohen's op-ed: Kerry's strategy can't be one of simply saying we'll make the world love us. That's running foreign policy by international polling, and that's just Clintonism writ larger. But give Kerry this credit: even though U.S. polls show majorities wanting the U.S. out of Iraq, he's not promising to deliver that baby.