Kerry: Hawk, Dove, or Something In Between?

Political analysis is not our forte here at VI. Much preferred are the unfettered speculations of philosophy and theology. Nevertheless, we’re being bombarded by 24/7 coverage of the Democrats’ convention, so one’s thoughts naturally turn to politics.

Now, it occurs to me that something strange is happening. Large swaths of the “anti-war” movement, broadly speaking, are supporting Kerry: left-wingers, pacifists, and other assorted peaceniks. I realize there is a strong felt need to throw out the hated Bush, but I can’t help but notice that the rhetoric, at least, of the Kerry campaign has so far not been very, well, pacifistic.

For instance, just last night John Edwards promised this:

We will lead strong alliances. We will safeguard and secure our weapons of mass destruction. We will strengthen our homeland security, protect our ports, protect our chemical plants, and support our firefighters, police officers, EMTs. We will always… We will always use our military might to keep the American people safe. And we, John and I, we will have one clear unmistakable message for Al Qaida and these terrorists: You cannot run. You cannot hide. We will destroy you.

He also vowed that he and Kerry would pursue victory in Iraq:

With a new president who strengthens and leads our alliances, we can get NATO to help secure Iraq. We can ensure that Iraq’s neighbors, like Syria and Iran, don’t stand in the way of a democratic Iraq. We can help Iraq’s economy by getting other countries to forgive their enormous debt and participate in the reconstruction. We can do this for the Iraqi people. We can do it for our own soldiers. And we will get this done right. A new president will bring the world to our side, and with it a stable Iraq, a real chance for freedom and peace in the Middle East, including a safe and secure Israel.



Andrew Sullivan, probably as good a gauge of generally “hawkish” opinion as any, seemed smitten:

“Edwards gave an immensely tough, hawkish pro-war speech. They really are pulling a Kennedy in 1960.”

(“Pulling a Kennedy” here refers to running to the “right” of the Republicans on national security, i.e. being tougher than Bush.)

Now, obviously both the peaceniks and Sullivan can’t be right about Kerry, can they? Is he “tough, hawkish [and] pro-war” or is Kerry, as Sydney Callahan–“an advocate of a Catholic consistent ethic of life”–recently put it, “a Catholic veteran and antiwar protester [who] will be committed to work for a foreign policy of international cooperation aimed at peacemaking”?

Somebody, it seems, is engaged in wishful thinking here. If history is any guide, I suspect it’s the peaceniks who are getting taken for a ride.

More realistically (or maybe just more cynically), Alexander Cockburn says Kerry:

…offers himself up mainly as a more competent manager of the Bush agenda, a steadier hand on the helm of the Empire. His pedigree is immaculate. He was a founder-member of the Democratic Leadership Council, the claque of neoliberals that has sought to reshape it as a hawkish and pro-business party with a soft spot for abortion-essentially a stingier version of the Rockefeller Republicans. Kerry enthusiastically backed both of Bush’s wars, and in June of 2004, at the very moment Bush signaled a desire to retreat, the senator called for 25,000 new troops to be sent to Iraq, with a plan for the US military to remain entrenched there for at least the next four years.

 

Now, competent management is not to be despised, even if it is the management of an empire. But this seems a far cry from the “peace candidate” many might imagine they’re getting.