I’m voting for Barack Obama this November for a very simple reason. It is hard to imagine a more disastrous presidency than that of George W. Bush. It was bad enough that he launched an unnecessary war and undermined the standing of the United States throughout the world in his first term. But in the waning days of his administration, he is presiding over a collapse of the American financial system and broader economy that will have consequences for years to come. As a general rule, democracies don’t work well if voters do not hold political parties accountable for failure. While John McCain is trying desperately to pretend that he never had anything to do with the Republican Party, I think it would a travesty to reward the Republicans for failure on such a grand scale.
McCain’s appeal was always that he could think for himself, but as the campaign has progressed, he has seemed simply erratic and hotheaded. His choice of Sarah Palin as a running mate was highly irresponsible; we have suffered under the current president who entered office without much knowledge of the world and was easily captured by the wrong advisers.
Who are these "wrong advisers" who "captured" Bush? I think it safe to say that Fukuyama means "Advisers Who Are Not Francis Fukuyama." On the other hand, Fukuyama did not hesitate to call for acts of war against Iraq in 1998, when he signed a letter to President Clinton urging him to implement "a strategy for removing Saddam's regime from power."
Fukuyama's attack on Sarah Palin is unjust, essentially making Palin the scapegoat of his disillusionment with Bush. But alas, before the "unnecessary war" started -- as the result of the ill-informed president being advised by Advisers Who Are Not Francis Fukuyama -- Fukuyama was busy scapegoating conservative and libertarian opponents of the war as "unrealitistic" and "isolationist."
When Fukuyama was in a position to influence events, he instead focused his attention on attacking rivals. And now that President Bush's failures have destroyed the credibility of his former friends, Fukuyama instinctively attacks Palin -- a target of opportunity, so to speak -- in the process of endorsing Obama, whose (alleged) superiority in "knowledge of the world" means more to Fukuyama than Obama's transparent sympathy for America's enemies.
He's just a suck-up, not nearly as clever as he thinks himself to be, and if the götterdämmerung of the Bush era has yielded no other benefit to humanity, we can at least be thankful that it has made Fukuyama entirely irrelevant.
On the other hand, Fukuyama did not hesitate to call for acts of war against Iraq in 1998
ReplyDeleteAs you may recall, military aid was limited to $97 million.
I cannot recall any time when Francis Fukuyama was ever actually right about anything. He seems to be a clever guy and has an authoritative writing style and, uh, that's about it. Well, if this election does nothing else for the republic it will spare our eyeballs a bit by teaching us who to not bother reading.
ReplyDeleteIt's like these guys each have the same script. They don't like Bush, the think McCain started out okay, but he picked Palin for VP and somehow that makes him unacceptable, but they never say just what it is about Palin.
ReplyDeleteIt's all a bunch of stupid excuse making to cover for the fact they have no principles. They're just trying to position themselves in what they believe will be the next administration. They make me sick.
For what it's worth, I have a hunch that the "wrong advisers" he alluded to are the alumni of Project for the New American Century. The Bush Doctrine and the Iraq war were mapped out by PNAC in the 90s, waiting for a president with the will to take up their challenge and bring their vision to fruition. A lot of PNAC's best and brightest were and are the heart of the Bush team. Fukuyama, of course, isn't one of them.
ReplyDelete