As Douglass has detailed, President Kennedy stands as a decided contrast with Foster and Allen Dulles -- as detailed by Kinzer. For example, JFK's attitudes toward the Soviet Union, Cuba, Latin America in general, Africa in general, and Indonesia stand in sharp contrast with the views of the Dulles brothers and of the CIA. According to Douglass, President Kennedy was using back channels to explore avenues of peace with Premier Nikita Khrushchev of the Soviet Union and with Fidel Castro in Cuba. Neither the Joint Chiefs nor the CIA would have welcomed President Kennedy's peace overtures with Khrushchev and Castro. Instead of using President Kennedy's policies as points of contrast with the policies of the Dulles brothers, Kinzer works with a polemical framework.
LET'S HAVE A GRAND DEBATE?
Here's how Kinzer sums up his concern about the Dulles brothers: "Their actions frame the grand debate over America's role in the world that has never been truly joined in the United States" (327). So what does it mean for a debate to be joined? In a criminal trial in the United States, the prosecuting attorney claims that the defendant is guilty as charged. The defense attorney then claims, "No, he (or she) is not guilty as charged." This is an example of how a debate is joined. Now, in a criminal trial, the prosecuting attorney could charge the defendant with more than one crime. The defense attorney could join the debate by declaring charge by charge that the defendant is not guilty of any of the charges.
So what, exactly, is "the grand debate over America's role in the world that has never been truly joined in the United States" -- according to Kinzer? He says, "Many Americans still celebrate their country's [supposedly] providential "exceptionalism'" (328). But how many Americans today still celebrate our country's supposedly providential exceptionalism? Granted, certain conservatives do. But the Republican candidate for president did not emerge victorious in 2012. According to Kinzer, this supposed exceptionalism involves "the view that the United States is inherently more moral and farther-seeing than other countries and therefore may behave in ways that others should not" (3). But Kinzer also claims that there is a related "belief that because of its immense power, the United States can not only topple governments but guide the course of history" (3). In theory, the debate about the role of the United States in the world could involve all the key points identified by Kinzer. However, I suspect that the grand debate about the role on the United States in the world is not ever going to be joined. In other words, I do not expect that there will ever be a grand debate.
After all, President George W. Bush had a sharp bipolar view of the world that clearly resembled the sharp bipolar view of the anti-communist Americans such as the Dulles brothers and Eisenhower. Moreover, President George W. Bush used his bipolar view of the world to launch his regime change against Saddam Hussein in Iraq -- based on the fear that Saddam allegedly had weapons of mass destruction. As this example shows once again, fear is the culprit. By inciting fear, elected and appointed government officials can help generate hysteria.
Next Page 1 | 2 | 3
(Note: You can view every article as one long page if you sign up as an Advocate Member, or higher).
1
1
1
