Presidential Candidate - Wesley Clark - Report Example

145676 "Im running to bring back the core ideals of our democracy - personal liberty, open debate, and opportunity for all. These ideals have made usgreat. They will make us greater. They will make us safer and more prosperous. Join me. We can have a new kind of patriotism in America. We can have a new kind of America." http://www.clark04.com/about/ Considered to be a national treasure by his supporters and a mass murderer by his critics, General Wesley Clark made the above statement. Wesley Clark, a retired four star General of US army between 1997 and 2000, served as Supreme Allied Commander of NATO in Europe, commanded Operation allied Force in Kosovo war, and recipient of several knighthoods, medals, honours and accolades. He joined the race for 2004 Presidential nominations from Democratic Party, only to withdraw later from the race and campaigned for John Kerry. Clark is considered as a potential candidate for the 2008 Presidential race. He had been vaguely controversial at times and in one such incident what he called as “first experience in the rough and tumble of high visibility ….and a painful few days1” when President Bill Clinton had to send a letter to Congress backing Clark’s action, rather unapproved, of meeting Bosnian military leaders including Ratco Mladic, who was accused of genocide and war crimes later. His early retirement from NATO has remained controversial. His short campaign was mainly on issues like patriotism, leadership showing the way, but remained sketchy on policy matters though there were mentions of tax relief and knee jerk policy proposals. It was not surprising considering that he came into Democratic Party only in 2003 and this apparent weakness did not help his campaign. Clark had been a very strong critic of Iraq war and always reiterated that it has no connection with the war on terror. His testimony before House Armed Services Committee (HASC) was full of warnings that Bush administration did not have any clear policy about Iraq’s future after the fall of Saddam, or had any strategy after the unplanned occupation of Iraq. He reiterated that Bush administration is being plagued by the non-existence of a strategically far reaching foreign policy and how costs and loss of face had been unbelievable while the consequences were negatively ever-lasting. After endorsing Kerry, he made frequent appearances on fundraising TV events and spoke against Bush administration and its adverse effects. He is projected as an environmental friendly leader especially after receiving Audubon Award, for helping to save an endangered species. He was considered to be one of the quiet heroes, who never made a huge show of his achievements, and always took immense trouble to take care of his soldiers and their needs and his statements were clear proof of his concern. "You cant build a strong Army just with great generals; you have to have great people at every rank. You have to give everyone a chance to be all you can be. Its true for the United States Army, and its true for the United States." http://www.clark04.com/about/ Talking about Saddam Hussein, to Peter Cook, on 2nd January 2007 in a TV interview, he said in the typically uncaring American way: “I think his execution was inevitable, but I think the manner in which it was done - the haste, the lack of control of the execution site, the taunting and so forth - were provocative…They knew it would provoke a Sunni reaction, and the way it works in societies is one form of extremism promotes the extremism of the other side. And there are those who are profiting from the division of Iraq, and they want to see it continue http://securingamerica.com/ As supreme commander of NATO, he gained a reputation as a tough no-nonsense soldier. Though he did not explore American theories, many issues seemed to have bothered him. The Washington Post, 26th August 2005, page A21, he said: From the outset of the U.S. post-invasion efforts, we needed a three-pronged strategy: diplomatic, political and military. Iraq sits geographically on the fault line between Shiite and Sunni Islam; for the mission to succeed we will have to be the catalyst for regional cooperation, not regional conflict” http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/features/2005/0505.clark.html While quoting a senior acquaintance official of White House in his book Waging a Modern War, who said “No one is going to tell us where we can or can’t bomb”, Clark says that US proceeded exactly in the same way in Afghanistan, although the saving grace had been the other countries that joined the campaign. “In the war on terrorism, alliances are not an obstacle to victory – they are the key to it” he said2. His criticism of Iraqi war was based with Kosovo experience. “Clark, who led a war against a tyrant who brutalized his people, now finds himself opposing the war that overturned Saddam Hussein. http://www.newyorker.com/fact/content/articles/031117fa_fact?031117fa_fact His involvement in the massacre at Waco, assault on Branch Davidians have plagued him unendingly. He was also called a big advocate of bombing Puerto Rican island of Vieques. But under Clinton administration Clark opposed a four month bombing moratorium, by claiming that sailors and marines may not be “fully combat ready without Vieques’ realistic live-fire strike-warfare training" and this gave him a particularly war-mongering image later. Another story that made rounds was General Sir Mike Jackson, Commander of the International K-For peacekeeping force telling him during one of the heated sessions: “I’m not going to start the third world war for you,” when he refused to act on the order to send assault forces to face Russian troops in Kosovo. Today, his views are not limited only to Military science and he is very realistic when he says: “Democracy cant be imposed--it has to be homegrown. In the Middle East, democracy has begun to capture the imagination of the people. For Washington to take credit is not only to disparage courageous leaders throughout the region, but also to undercut their influence at the time it most needs to be augmented” http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/features/2005/0505.clark.html He supports women’s rights on abortion, sexual orientation, and is a hard-core conservative authoritarian about organised school prayers. He believes in leaving reproduction to women and doctors. In economic front, he would like to plan jobs, and build healthy economy on long term deficit reduction. In civil rights, he wants to abolish the wage gap for women, and believes in constitutional amendment on flag desecration, but, feels that ‘right to silence’ should be reviewed. He holds views like homosexuality is not a sin, and is against compromising on freedom on issues of terrorism, supports action against racial discrimination, worried that habeus corpus is discontinued due to war on terror, and says independent corporate boards need transparency. He approves death penalty on heinous and federal crimes, but it should be justified through DNA tests and complete unbiased trial. He stands for more flexible unprejudiced educational opportunities, and completely supports all environmental measures for a healthy and unthreatened planet (ibid). US Republican senator of 33 years, Trent Lott, on the other hand, thinks there should be criminal penalty for harming unborn foetus, wants to maintain ban on abortion in military bases, demands ban on partial birth abortions, and supports banning on human cloning. On budget and economy, he believes on a balanced budget of reduced overall spending. His civil rights represent ban on same sex marriages even though he does not want to expand hate crimes into including sexual orientation. He does not mind cell phone wiretapping, does not want additional funds for minority and women, but supports funding for women-owned businesses. Also supports job discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation. He wants bankruptcy rules to be reviewed. He argues that drugs should be controlled and increased penalty should be introduced. He wants Alaska oil digging to go on and does not mind digging in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. He has no sympathy for desert protection in California, and likes to enlarge NATO to Eastern Europe. He argued not to end want Vietnam embargo and trade embargo against Cuba. http://www.ontheissues.org/Senate/Trent_Lott.htm Keeping with the American political theory, both personalities separate corporate and personal properties. If Clark represents Liberalism, the politics of populist thought, and adopts the technique of Liberal Reform. He has corporate impulse and Social Darwinism and to some extent, he has imbibed Darwinism into liberal culture, as shown by his social ponderings. He is hostile towards traditionally inconvenient views and this might make him a progressive President with new liberalism. He seems to have logical consistency and believes in remedial legislation. But also seems to be having a certain corporate impulse, and assumptions. Both leaders stand for the American way of freedom that has always not been the correct path, and has been contradicted many times. “It is a matter of profound historical importance, however, that in the process of rejecting the bourgeois approach to freedom, these new liberals also rejected a good deal of what was being approached. They moved from self-interest to dis-interest, obscuring the freedom to do anything more than throw oneself into the pre-defined flow of events,” Lustig (1982, p.148). Lott seems to have mastered politics of pragmatism, judicial realism and traditional wisdom. He practices hidden politics of administration, and firm scientific management. Both have diverse American ways of social control and Clark represents more of New Nationalism. Lott permeates more of discipline, in spite of Clark’s long military background. Both represent American intellectual history and founding. But Lott represents the Republican tradition, while Clark is a blue Democratic. “American politican theory is grounded in, conditioned by, and ultimately approved by a self-govening, self-defining people,” Lutz, (1992, p.152). Lott’s tough stand on environmental issues could be disturbing news and one should hope that he does not gain popular support on this particular issue. His conservative view point reminds the early American views of profit by any means, and this policy had given them supremacy over the native population. Here his thinking is more American than that of Clark. Clark, on the other hand, is considered to be a Populist-Learning liberal, because his personal score (58%) meets economic score (23%) in the grid below: http://www.issues2002.org/VoteMatch/candidate_map.asp?a1=1&a2=1&a3=1&a4=2&a8=2&a9=5&a10=4&a5=2&a6=5&a7=2&a14=5&a15=1&a16=4&a19=3&a17=2&a18=3&a20=1&a11=1&a12=1&a13=4&i1=1&i2=1&i3=1&i4=1&p=58&e=23&t=16 BIBLIOGRAPHY: 1. Lutz, Donald S. (1992), A Preface to American Political Theory, University Press of Kansas. 2. Lustig, R. Jeffrey (1982), Corporate Liberalism, The Origins of Modern American Political Theory, University of California Press, Berkeley. ONLINE SOURCES: 1. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wesley_Clark#_note-30 2. http://www.clark04.com/about/ 3. http://securingamerica.com/ 4. http://www.prospect-magazine.co.uk/article_details.php?id=5429 5. http://www.newyorker.com/fact/content/articles/031117fa_fact?031117fa_fact 6. http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/features/2005/0505.clark.html 7. http://www.issues2002.org/VoteMatch/candidate_map.asp?a1=1&a2=1&a3=1&a4=2&a8=2&a9=5&a10=4&a5=2&a6=5&a7=2&a14=5&a15=1&a16=4&a19=3&a17=2&a18=3&a20=1&a11=1&a12=1&a13=4&i1=1&i2=1&i3=1&i4=1&p=58&e=23&t=16 8. http://www.ontheissues.org/Senate/Trent_Lott.htm 9. Read More