Debate? What debate? What we witnessed Monday night [October 22] was the total hegemony of imperial corporate ideology, served up in chocolate and vanilla flavors. On every point of substance, Barack Obama and Mitt Romney are indistinguishable - not just equally evil, but identically so. On foreign policy, there is not one ray of daylight between the two.
In 2011, Obama was simultaneously waging drone and bomb wars against five countries: Libya, Somalia, Yemen, Afghanistan and Pakistan (he’s currently down to four, plus a proxy terror war in Syria). Romney applauds all of these aggressions, with the caveat that he would bring superior “leadership” to the carnage. Given these facts, how shall we rate the contenders?
If you believe that Romney - who has never caused a cruise missile to be fired in anger - is a dangerous warmonger, then what about the guy whose five actual wars Romney fully endorses? Do you prefer Obama’s martial leadership qualities to Romney’s? If leadership in war involves building foreign and domestic support for war-making, then Obama is your man. After all, he’s neutralized most domestic anti-war sentiment while leading (and definitely not from behind) his NATO and royal Persian Gulf allies in the nine-month pulverization of Libya - great feats of imperial stewardship!
But, of course, that raises the question: should peace-loving voters, given a choice, prefer politicians who are very good at global aggression - who make war palatable to domestic and foreign audiences, as Obama does - or should peaceful folk opt for the less gifted warmonger, one so poorly endowed in leadership skills that he brings discredit to the imperial project, as did George Bush (and as seems likely under a President Romney)? Such is the nature of the choice facing those who cannot resist voting for one or the other of Monday’s contenders: the wannabe destroyer of worlds, or the guy with all the bloody hash marks on his arm.