Gabriel Kolko, a distinguished military historian and left-wing political commentator, makes a surprising case for electing Bush over Kerry. His overall obejctive is to see that U.S. is isolated and its power constrained. The key to obtaining that objective is destroying the alliance system on which America's power depends. Since Kerry and the Democrats would attempt to repair the alliance system, while Bush and the Neo-conservatives would continue to destroy it, Bush is thought to be preferable to Kerry.
As far as I can see, this is a brilliant but looney argument. I don't buy it. Even if Kolko is correct about America's dependence on the alliance system, four more years of Bush cannot be risked. Kolko is too sanguine. As Immanuel Wallerstein, another distinguished leftist, has correctly argued, Bush is a fundamental threat to democracy at home and to world peace abroad. Dissolution of the alliance system would hardly be enough to offset the long-term nor the short-term disasters of another Bush administration. John Pilger is closer to the mark when he argues that constraining and isolating U.S. power depends greatly on whether the insurgency in Iraq, despite its indefensible tactics, can prevent the U.S. from achieving its goals.
The US Must be Isolated and Constrained
The Coming Elections and the Future of American Global Power
By GABRIEL KOLKO
March 12 / 14, 2004
... If the Democrats win they will attempt in the name of internationalism to reconstruct the alliance system as it existed before the Yugoslav war of 1999, when even the Clinton Administration turned against the veto powers built into the NATO system. America's power to act on the world scene would therefore be greater. John Kerry's foreign policy adviser, Rand Beers, worked for Bush's National Security Council until a year ago. More important, Kerry himself voted for many of Bush's key foreign and domestic measures and he is, at best, an indifferent candidate. His statements and interviews over the past weeks dealing with foreign affairs have been both vague and incoherent. Kerry is neither articulate nor impressive as a candidate or as someone who is likely to formulate an alternative to Bush's foreign and defense policies, which have much more in common with Clinton's than they have differences. To be critical of Bush is scarcely justification for wishful thinking about Kerry. Since 1947, the foreign policies of the Democrats and Republicans have been essentially consensual on crucial issues--"bipartisan" as both parties phrase it--but they often utilize quite different rhetoric.
Critics of the existing foreign or domestic order will not take over Washington this November. As dangerous as it is, Bush's reelection may be a lesser evil because he is much more likely to continue the destruction of the alliance system that is so crucial to American power. One does not have to believe that the worse the better but we have to consider candidly the foreign policy consequences of a renewal of Bush's mandate. ...