Write your comment in the form below. Be sure to 'Preview' your comment to make sure that it will appear as you want it to.
You Are Replying To This Comment:
Edwards buys into Bush Admin discourse
By tanya doriss
Jun 21st 2007
at 11:10 am EDT
Thanks Dana. I felt the same way about Edwards' speech.
I was really shocked and offended by his statement that children aren't educated in the Middle East (the lead in to his grand plan for getting off of oil). First off, the Middle East is comprised of many people and cultures, to make an assumption that NONE of them provide children with education is simply false and ignorant. This type of statement simply reinforces and reinscribes the Bush Administration's propensity to point fingers, lay blame and perpetuate a hegemonic discourse which only serves to alienate us from the rest of the world--something we do not need more of from the next president and which ignores the reality that every nation is doing some things well and others not so well (including the US).
How about we get off of oil because it's the right thing to do, rather than as a plan to reshape foreign nations. Let's start with saving the planet and go from there.
That said, normally I really like what Edwards has to say. I wonder if he has a new foreign policy adviser? Or if he's trying to show that he is tough on terrorism?
I too was at Take Back America yesterday, wowed and moved by both Obama and Edwards' speeches. But I find it strange that Matt and Ezra found Edwards so "persuasive," "direct," and "plausible" on foreign policy. Edwards laid out a wildly optimistic vision in which:
1. American energy independence (hence, no more oil cash) forces Middle Eastern nations to invest in education, economic development, and good government.
2.The United States starts to rely on homegrown energy sources (ethanol).
3. Europe doesn't have enough empty space to compete, so it invests heavily in African agriculture and energy.
4. African poverty lifts.
These would all be excellent accomplishments. But the causality here is far from assured. I agree with Brian Beutler that this seems "incredibly difficult to pull off." And more disturbingly, the notion that we can "remake the Middle East" politically just by decreasing our dependence on their oil -- as Edwards suggested today -- is, I fear, as ignorant of entrenched ethnic and religious tensions as the neo-conservatism of George W. Bush. Both theories over-reach and rely upon a grandiose rhetoric in which the United States is not a helpmate to the world's disenfranchised but a direct architect of ideal societies. (To be fair, Edwards' words on aid to alleviate global poverty had an entirely different tone.)
The exceptionalist (and exemplarist) impulse in American history is well-covered, and has of course led to both triumphs and tragedies. Call me a realist, but I'm hoping for a newer, humbler tone to a progressive foreign policy.
Please remember that Campus Progress' terms of use do not allow promoting or endorsing any particular political party or candidate for office. Posts or comments that do this will be deleted.
!
I was really shocked and offended by his statement that children aren't educated in the Middle East (the lead in to his grand plan for getting off of oil). First off, the Middle East is comprised of many people and cultures, to make an assumption that NONE of them provide children with education is simply false and ignorant. This type of statement simply reinforces and reinscribes the Bush Administration's propensity to point fingers, lay blame and perpetuate a hegemonic discourse which only serves to alienate us from the rest of the world--something we do not need more of from the next president and which ignores the reality that every nation is doing some things well and others not so well (including the US).
How about we get off of oil because it's the right thing to do, rather than as a plan to reshape foreign nations. Let's start with saving the planet and go from there.
That said, normally I really like what Edwards has to say. I wonder if he has a new foreign policy adviser? Or if he's trying to show that he is tough on terrorism?