Many Americans agree on one thing: the current two-party political system is broken. According to the new NBC/WSJ poll, only a tiny minority–15 percent–think the two-party system works fairly well. Fifty-two percent say it has real problems but can work with some improvement, and 31 percent think it is seriously broken and that there is need for a third party; 83 percent of Americans say the political system of the country needs significant improvements, according to FDL Elections report.
“The two-party system has given this country the war of Lyndon Johnson, the Watergate of Nixon and the incompetence of Carter. Saying we should keep the two-party system simply because it is working is like saying the Titanic voyage was a success because a few people survived on life rafts,” Eugene J. McCarthy said as early as in 1978.
Although the programs of the Democrats and Republicans might slightly differ regarding the US inside business, like over who is going to pay more taxes, given the certain circumstances, their foreign policies would be pretty much the same.
During the election campaign in 2008, Barack Obama, a candidate from the Democrats, suggested the U.S. troops should leave Iraq within eight months, but to send additional contingent to Afghanistan and Pakistan to further fight with Al Qaeda.
John McCain, a candidate from the Republicans, insisted on leaving the troops in Iraq and Afghanistan, but said nothing about sending them to Pakistan.
“In the Bush era, Democrats accused Republicans of overreliance on military assistance to Pakistan. Hillary Clinton, secretary of state, promised $2bn more in military aid for Islamabad to accompany increased civilian help. Mr Obama has also stepped up drone strikes in Pakistan to record levels – more than 20 last month alone,” Daniel Dombey argued in the article Obama takes on a Bush feel.
In November 2008 there was a new treaty signed between the U.S. and Iraq that agreed the U.S. military should stay in Iraq till 2011. It was signed by George Bush. And after becoming the President, Obama changed nothing about it.
“This happens because the U.S. foreign policy is defined not by the promises of one or another person, as given during the election campaigns, but by the strategic interests of the power,” Nikolay Starikov wrote in his book Crisis: the way it’s done.
As for the Iran issue, Condoleezza Rice, the former secretary of state in an interview with the Financial Times said Barack Obama had little option but to follow George W. Bush (Jr.) approach on a range of foreign policy issues, including Iran.
“I get informed all the time, that even though “Obama isn’t so great”, at least he hasn’t invaded Iran yet, and McCain surely would have been bombing Iran by now. Okay so rhetoric towards Iran would be heigtened, but whether McCain would have waged another military campaign during the current political climate would be an assumption too far,” Cindy Sheehan wrote in her article US: myth of the two party system, which appeared on Al Jazeera.
“In perhaps his biggest foreign policy success, Mr Obama has improved relations with Russia after the bad-tempered Putin-Bush era. Mr Obama has also gone much further than Mr Bush in calling for Israel to stop building settlements on occupied land. But he has become more conciliatory in recent months and his talk of getting a peace deal within a year echoes a promise made by Mr Bush,” Dombey noted.
In general, there might be no significant difference for the world irrespective of who (Democrats or Republicans) wins the election in the U.S. Its foreign policy decisions will depend on the current interests of the state.