In his debate performances, interviews and speeches on foreign and economic policy, Gore has repeatedly portrayed
himself as a man who has come to believe in vigorous American intervention abroad, a reversal of Democratic philosophy for most of the time since the end of the war in Vietnam. He describes how the experience of seeing the Clinton administration move too slowly to end the killing in Bosnia drove him to conclude that America must be prepared to prevent disaster, and how two successive global financial crises reshaped his understanding of the central role economic stability must play in the foreign policy agenda. Bush, on the other hand, has woven a middle ground between two battling factions of his party - internationalists who support engagement with great powers like China and isolationists who are deeply suspicious of the United Nations, the International Monetary Fund and the World Trade Organization.
Source: David Sanger, NY Times (online at Al Gore on Foreign Policy : Oct 30, 2000)
"We are now fighting for the first long-term, sustained increase in defense spending in a decade."
-Al Gore, before the American Legion National Convention, Anaheim, CA, September 8, 1999
It's an arms race between the Democrats and the Republicans. Gore and Bush are outbidding each other day by day in the bid to be the bigger hawk. Gore pledges more interventions ("forward engagement") round the world if he's elected president, and denounces Bush's plan for unilateral cuts in the nuclear arsenal as irresponsible.
Gore, bracingly upfront by comparison, recently told the Stop the Arms Race political action that he believes the military budget should be increased.
Last modified: 2 November 2000
http://www.debatethis.org/gore/military/