[P]residents don't make policy; administrations do. To judge by the cadre of advisors they've recruited, neither candidate holds much affinity for outside-the-box thinkers. Obama's "national security working group," for example, consists chiefly of Democratic war horses, including former secretaries of State Madeleine Albright and Warren Christopher and former national security advisor Anthony Lake -- a group that is not young, not charismatic and not known for innovative thinking.
McCain's national security team features a strong neoconservative presence, including pundits such as Max Boot and Robert Kagan, along with hawkish Washington insiders such as Randy Scheunemann and James Woolsey. All figured prominently among advocates of invading Iraq; none has yet to repent. Agents of change? Not likely, unless having a go at Iran qualifies as creative thinking.
The very structure of American politics imposes its own constraints. For all the clout that presidents have accrued since World War II, their prerogatives remain limited ... A President Obama, even if his own party runs the Senate and House, won't enjoy all that much more latitude, especially when it comes to three areas in which the dead hand of the past weighs most heavily: defense policy, energy policy and the Arab-Israeli peace process. The military-industrial complex will inhibit efforts to curb the Pentagon's penchant for waste. Detroit and Big Oil will conspire to prolong the age of gas guzzling. And the Israel lobby will oppose attempts to chart a new course in the Middle East. If the past provides any indication, advocates of the status quo will mount a tenacious defense.
Will it be asking too much to expect a significant reduction of the one trillion dollar defense budget? Yes, for the tentacles of the military-industrial-congressional-prison-infotainment complex suck hard on the teat of government largesse, and that complex contributes the big bucks. Besides, Keynsian militarism (and cheap oil) have greased the gears the U.S. economy since 1945 and its easier to keep building weapons and war machines than to retool to rebuild infrastructure or develop alternative energy sources.
Will it be asking too much to develop a sane national energy plan and begin to take the steps to put the brakes on global warming? Yes, for wee, the sheeple love our automobiles, our suburban wastelands, our air conditioning, our malls, our illusions of freedom, and the cultural impact of American television on the rapidly developing economies of India and China has made their huddled masses yearning to be free to drive gas guzzlers.
Will it be asking too much to rethink the role of the U.S. military from one of an implementer of an imperialist hegemonic foreign policy philosophy to a policy of actual national defense? Yes, for what's the point in having the world's most effective killing and destructive force (absent total nuclear war) if you're not going to use it? Just recognize that it's most effectively used in places like Grenada and Panama rather than countries like Korea, Vietnam, Iraq, Afghanistan.
Will it be asking too much to take a realistic cost-benefit analysis with the U.S. foreign policy vis-a-vis the middle East, and our status as a virtual strategic lapdog of the Israeli government? Yes, for Obama and McCain have pledged their fealty to Israel and all U.S. politicians fear the wrath of AIPAC.
Change? Change is inevitable. Empires decline, and the American political, financial, and media elites are in a state of denial. How shall the empire end? With a bang or a whimper? Probably with a whimpering bang, trying propogate a permanent warfare state until the credit cards are maxxed out, and even the military can get no more petrol.
