It seems to me that the average American has been transformed into the "last man," as predicted by Nietzsche, a German philosopher. Nietzsche theorized that the influence of liberal democracy would cause humans to lose the innate desire to overcome others through war and instead focus on material gain. This theory holds true in the present state of American politics, where voters are more interested in their own personal economic comfort than anything else.
Having said this, it is clear why Clinton is winning the race for the U.S. presidency; Americans have experienced uninterrupted economic expansion under the current president and they are therefore ready to elect him for another four years. Economic welfare has apparently become the most important political issue in the voter's mind. This penchant saddens me because, in this world marred by hatred, the ability to conduct foreign policy, not economic policy, is the most essential quality in a president.
The unambiguous fact is that Clinton has moved so far to the right that there is no significant economic policy distinction between the two candidates. But there is a foreign policy distinction. While Dole approaches foreign affairs in a consistent manner, Clinton employs a perilously incoherent strategy -- a result of his view that foreign policy is simply a means to win votes.
Take a look at the Helms-Burton Act, passed earlier this year. An internationally controversial law, it has a provision that gives American courts the right to prosecute the beneficiaries of American property in Cuba that was confiscated when Fidel Castro took power. This bill has angered many U.S. allies, such as Canada, because it blatantly violates the international law principle of state sovereignty by allowing the American judiciary system to interfere unjustifiably with citizens of other countries.
Clinton is well aware of the absurdity of this act, but because of the Cuban-American voters in New Jersey and Florida nagging his conscience, he signed the bill. Always seeking the middle ground, however, he strategically decided to delay enactment of the aforementioned controversial provision until after the Presidential election.
Another example of Clinton's pathetic foreign policy is his recent handling of the crisis in Iraq. After Saddam Hussein attacked Kurdish factions in northern Iraq, Clinton opted unilaterally for air strikes, oblivious to the increasingly hostile Arabic sentiment toward the West. Unlike Bush, who globally legitimized the U.S. invasion of Iraq in 1992 through active diplomacy with the other Arab nations, Clinton did not even realize that most Arabic nations were reluctant to support his policy until after the first stage of the attack.
Clinton's vacillation on foreign policy decisions is also exhibited in his hesitation to arrest the Serbian leader Radovan Karadzic even after the Hague War Crimes Tribunal issued a warrant for his arrest so he could be tried for numerous human rights abuses. The United States, in signing the Dayton accord, is obligated to ensure extradition of those war criminals the tribunal has decided to try. Although Karadzic agreed to step down from his powerful position as President of the Serbian Democratic Party because his involvement in the Presidential election would have caused an uproar, he has still not been arrested. Clinton has continued to hesitate even though a report by the International Crisis Group, a transnational think-tank, has warned that such neglect will jeopardize peace in the former Yugoslavia. Clinton seems too concerned about his own reelection effort to take the necessary action because he fears that an American casualty would have a negative effect on his campaign.
Any evidence adduced to show Dole's competence in foreign affairs, in contrast, is necessarily circumstantial, for he could become like Clinton once he becomes President. But if his past record means anything, Dole is undoubtedly consistent. He has always been skeptical of the pitifully inefficient United Nations and of Secretary General Boutros-Boutros Ghali as the commander of American troops. Instead, Dole has been pushing for a greater alliance among liberal democracies under NATO. Tolerating no nonsense, Dole adamantly, and correctly, argued that the arms embargo in Bosnia be lifted during the civil strife, and he endorsed Clinton's move to send troops there, even though it might have been a great opportunity to attack the president.
Foreign policy should be the defining issue in this election because the world still faces tremendous challenges. One such challenge is learning how to co-exist with an increasing number of alienated people, like Islamic Fundamentalists, who are struggling to reconcile their culture with ubiquitous Western morals.
Humans are weak, and thus have in the past depended on oppressive institutions based on "miracle, mystery and authority," to use Dostoevsky's words. But the liberal democratic principles have slowly dissolved those institutions and atomized society into a loose community of confused individuals. What makes this state unstable is that the confused also are acquiring the technology to destroy millions.
America once knew the virtue of sacrifice for the betterment of the world, when it relentlessly aided the reconstruction efforts of the countries obliterated by WW II. I am more than grateful to America, for my joyful life exists only because of those in this country who rebuilt Japan. And I hope that Americans can once again transcend the commonsensical life of economics to elevate human spirit to another level.
