Franklin Roosevelt fought the Great Depression when 25 percent of our people were out of work, and in places like my home state, one-half the people were living in abject poverty, but he fought the Great Depression and the rise of fascism at the same time. Harry Truman carried out the Fair Deal at home, the GI Bill, a new housing program, economic reconstruction, and at the same time, moved to contain communist aggression in Eastern Europe, in Europe, and Korea. They would have laughed, these presidents, at the idea of conducting foreign affairs in the first term and then switching to domestic affairs (laughter, applause).
In saying this, I do not in any way belittle President Bush's accomplishments abroad
in putting together the international coalition
in the war effort against Iraq after Saddam Hussein invaded Kuwait to his success in getting the Middle East peace talks moving. Indeed, I have supported those efforts. But no American foreign policy can succeed if it neglects our domestic needs, and no American foreign policy can succeed if it slights our commitment to democracy. The President often takes a lot of credit for communism's downfall, but fails to recognize that the global democratic revolution actually gave freedom its birth. He simply does not seem at home in the mainstream, pro-democracy tradition of American foreigr policy. He shows little regard for the idea that we must have a principled and coherent American purpose in international affairs, something he calls "the vision thing." (Applause.) Instead, President Bush seems too often to prefer a foreign policy that embraces stability at the expense of freedom, a foreign policy built more on personal relationships with foreign leaders than on consideration of how those leaders acquired and maintain their power.
(Applause.)
It is almost as if this administration were nostalgic for a world of times past when foreign policy was the exclusive preserve of a few aristocrats. This approach to foreign policy is sometimes described as "power politics" to distinguish it from what some contend is sentimentalis and idealism of our pro-democracy foreign policy. But in a world where freedom, not tyranny, is on the march, the cynical calculus of pure power politics simply does not compute. It is ill-suited to a new era in which ideas and information are broadcast around the globe before ambassadors cal read their cables. Simple reliance on old balance of power strategies cannot bring the same practical success as a foreign policy that draws mori generously from America's democratic experience and ideals and lights fire in the hearts of millions of freedom-loving people around the world. (Applause.)
Let there be no mistake, this world is still a dangerous place. Military power still matters. And I am committed to maintaining a strong and ready defense. I will use that strength where necessary to defend vital interests. But power must be accompanied by clear purpose.
our
Mr. Bush's ambivalence about supporting democracy, his eagerness to befriend potentates and dictators has shown itself time and again. It has been a disservice not only to our democratic values, but also to our national interests. For in the long run, I believe Mr. Bush's neglect of our democratic ideals abroad could do as much harm as his neglect of our economic needs at home. (Applause.)
1