FP Logo Your portal to global politics, economics, and ideas
FP Logo
Article Index
Search Site
FP Archive article
free registration required
back issue only
Home
Search Site
FP Archive
Article Index
FP e-Alert
Breaking Global News
Worldwide Links
Idea Feed
Country Intelligence
Free FP e-Alert
Submit Free FP e-Alert
More Info
Academic Program
Current Article

The article you requested is only available to FP subscribers. A short excerpt is provided here for your reference. Log on or purchase Archive access below to read the full story.

If I Were President—Addressing the Democratic Deficit
By John Kerry
March/April 2003
Democrats must resist a new orthodoxy within our party—a politically stagnating shift that does a disservice to more than 75 years of history. That is the new conventional wisdom of consultants, pollsters, and strategists who argue that Democrats should be the party of domestic issues alone. They are wrong. As a party, Democrats need to talk about all the things that strengthen and protect the United States. We need to have a vision that extends to the world around us, and we should remember that this vision is as old as our party. Woodrow Wilson was elected president during a time of peace, but he led during a time of war. Franklin Roosevelt was elected to tackle the Great Depression, create Social Security, and put the United States back to work. But no one should forget that he did those things even as he responded to Pearl Harbor and marshaled the nation’s troops from Normandy to Iwo Jima. And John F. Kennedy didn’t try to change the subject of the debate when Gen. Dwight D. Eisenhower’s vice president brought up foreign policy. Kennedy challenged the United States globally, insisting that the country do more and better, not because these things are easy but because they are hard. (Timeline: Democratic presidents and foreign policy) It’s our turn again to talk about things that are hard. The war on terrorism is different than any war in history. Intelligence is this nation’s most important weapon but also its greatest vulnerability. It is now common knowledge that crucial intercepts from September 10, 2001, weren’t translated until two days later because of severe understaffing at U.S. intelligence agencies. As of January 2002, the U.S. Army had an average 44 percent shortfall in translators and interpreters in five critical languages: Arabic, Korean, Mandarin-Chinese, Persian-Farsi, and Russian. The State Department reported a 26 percent shortage of authorized...


Read the Full Story!


Free and unlimited access is available to all active FP subscribers. Non-subscribers can gain instant access by subscribing to FP or by purchasing a 24-hour or 7-day pass.

If you are a current subscriber or an FP passholder, please log in here:

Username:

Password:
Remember my login information on this computer.

If you are a subscriber, but don't have login information, click here to register now.

Forgot your username or password? Enter your e-mail address below and we'll send you your login information.

E-mail:

Subscribe Now

Not a subscriber? SUBSCRIBE NOW for instant access to all FP content! You'll get 6 insightful issues of FP and complete archive access for $19.95!

Passes

Buy this article for $0.00 USD

Buy a 24-hour Pass for just $7.95 USD.

Buy a 7-day Pass for just $24.95 USD.


 

Shop at FP
Subscribe to FP
Login
Username
Password


| Privacy Policy | Disclaimer | Contact Us | Site Map | Subscribe |

 
 
FP Logo
1899 L Street NW, Suite 550 | Washington, DC 20036 | Phone: 202-728-7300 | Fax: 202-728-7342
FOREIGN POLICY is published by the Slate Group, a division of Washingtonpost.Newsweek Interactive, LLC
All contents ©2009 Washingtonpost.Newsweek Interactive, LLC. All rights reserved.
Site design by bevia.com; Programming by Enovational Design