On the front page of today’s New York Times, James Bennet, back at home after a distinguished stint as the paper’s Jerusalem correspondent, takes a stab at trying to discern the differences between the foreign policy proposals of the candidates.
He begins by noting that the campaigns contend that Bush and Kerry “offer a stark choice about America’s role in the world.” Then, switching into his own voice, Bennet proffers a contrary premise:
One reason the candidates have not discussed a wide range of issues is that — for all the talk about stark differences — on many foreign policy subjects, from relations with China to the conflict between Israelis and Palestinians, the two differ slightly, if at all.
Even on Iraq, the candidate’s sharpest stated differences are retrospective, rather than prospective. Mr. Bush defends the war as central to the struggle against terrorism; Mr. Kerry criticizes it as a diversion. … neither man is calling for the immediate departure of American troops; both advocate accelerating the training of Iraqi forces.
Hmm. Provocative thesis. In more ways than we realize, these two guys stand for the same things?
Well, yes — until you turn to the jump of Bennet’s piece, on page A24. There, James B. Sternberg, director of foreign policy studies at the Brookings Institute, opines that this year potential voters “are … really lining up around two very different world views and two very different responses to 9/11.”
Bennet then goes on to note that Bush is often mocked as a trigger-happy loner and Kerry is lampooned as wanting permission from the UN to protect the US. Furthermore he notes — reversing course from his initial premise — those caricatures aren’t far from the mark, in that “there are unmistakable philosophical differences [between Bush and Kerry] with application across the range of foreign policy. Mr. Bush has a record of breaking with allies to act in what he perceives as vital American interest; Mr. Kerry is more comfortable operating with consensus.”
Two candidates more alike than we thought? Two candidates even more different from one another than we imagined? Bennet wants it both ways, but that approach leaves the reader more confused than when he started.
There is no doubt a truth somewhere in Bennet’s story; we just don’t know in which paragraph he hid it.
–Steve Lovelady
Steve Lovelady was editor of CJR Daily.