John Laughland, in The Australian:
A patrician grandee with a pleasing mix of liberal and patriotic views might seem to many Americans a welcome relief from the bellicose Texan with his faux swagger and his team of men who seem to have military-industrial complex written across their menacing foreheads. But if anti-war Americans do elect Kerry for that reason, they will have duped themselves. Warmongering will be worse under Kerry than under Bush and real peaceniks should therefore vote for Dubya. Bush and Kerry agree on almost everything in foreign policy but, where they disagree, Kerry is more hawkish.
I think some readers may disagree. More Laughland:
Serious neo-cons, indeed, might be calculating that the bungling Bush is more of a liability than an asset for their desire to remodel the Middle East and to consolidate the US's unchallenged military power.
Kerry might be just what they need to draw the sting of that left-wing anti-Americanism around the world and in the US that inspires so much anti-war feeling. The Kosovo war showed that a war for human rights and against oppression, fought by a slick Democrat, plays far better with world public opinion than all that red-neck bull about dangers to national security. It will be far easier for president Kerry to fight new wars than for the mistrusted and discredited Bush. So to those who think that the election of a Democratic president will put an end to US militarism, I say: You ain't seen nothin' yet.
I tend to agree that Kerry's personal philosophy doesn't make him any more pacifist than Bush, but there are political considerations. Kerry is, after all, a politician foremost. If he plays to his constituency he may not drop the anti-war veneer too quickly once in office.
Randall McElroy uses this article to point out, "Libertarians have known this for a long time: there is very little real difference between Democrats and Republicans."
I suspect my Republican and Democratic friends will disagree vehemently.
"Kerry is more hawkish."
"I think some readers may disagree."
I think that history shows that there is little way of knowing what a man will do when he becomes President. Mr. Lincoln believed in preserving slavery to preserve the Union.
Events change things. That makes being a pundit more complicated. (I realize that the job description calls for sitting in my chair and shouting at people, but I'm up for a more interesting job.)
I have no idea what Kerry will do once in office, but I certainly don't believe that democrats are peaceful. After all Democrats brought us into WW2, Korea, Vietnam, etc