John Kerry, known for his extensive diplomatic career, has announced he’s stepping down as the White House climate czar. His decision to shift focus towards President Biden’s reelection campaign marks the beginning of a new chapter. I am calling it, “It’s about time!” This move signals a significant change in the longstanding public service journey of the overpaid underachiever.
John Kerry, a figure long associated with the WASP (White Anglo-Saxon Protestant) establishment’s confidence, has often been criticized for lacking the discipline and skill to back it up. From his days in elite prep schools, where classmates humorously played “Hail to the Chief” on kazoos recognizing his lofty ambitions, to his time at Yale, where a peer described him as a “pompous blowhard,” Kerry’s personality has sparked mixed reactions.
Join us on Telegram: https://t.me/tfiglobal
Even among Ted Kennedy’s circle, he was labeled more as a “show horse,” suggesting a focus on appearance over substance. These anecdotes from his past serve as early indicators of the colossal failure the man was destined to be.
John Kerry’s journey from a Cold War dove to a humanitarian hawk to a Climate Change Catterpillar highlights a career filled with shifts in stance and controversial decisions. Notoriously known at the State Department for not engaging deeply with prepared materials, Kerry instead relied on “an interesting article or two” for historical context during negotiations. This approach led to numerous missteps throughout his career.
Kerry first gained prominence in 1971 with his Senate Foreign Relations Committee testimony about alleged U.S. war crimes in Vietnam, claims that were later found to be largely unverifiable or false. Despite this, he made a name for himself in the antiwar movement, emerging as a celebrated Cold War dove. He campaigned for the Senate with promises to dismantle the Reagan defense buildup and perceived Nicaraguan leader Daniel Ortega more as a misunderstood democrat than a Marxist autocrat.
Read More: Why Latin America loves Putin
However, as the political climate shifted and humanitarian interventions gained favor among Democrats, Kerry’s positions evolved. He opposed the first Gulf War but supported intervention in Kosovo, demonstrating a pivot in his approach to foreign policy. Despite a lack of significant legislative achievements, Kerry secured the Democratic presidential nomination in 2004. During his campaign, he himself acknowledged that some of his previous views were “ill advised” and even “stupid.”
Yet, Kerry’s policy stances continued to draw criticism. He voted for the invasion of Iraq, then opposed funding for the war and its reconstruction. His plan to draw new allies into Iraq faced scrutiny, especially as his campaign criticized allies like Australia for their participation in the conflict. Kerry’s career, marked by these pivots and paradoxes, reflects the complex and often contentious nature of political buffonery and lack of decision-making-brain-cells on the global stage.
John Kerry’s tenure as Secretary of State during President Obama’s second term was marked by a mix of ambition and setbacks, embodying a period of complex diplomatic endeavors. Observers like Kim Ghattas noted that Obama afforded Kerry more freedom than Hillary Clinton, partly because Kerry was not seen as a dufus who could never outshine the president. Under Obama’s indulgence, Kerry engaged freely, albeit within the broader framework of Obama’s foreign policy goals, focusing on striking deals with America’s adversaries.
American journalist David Remnick’s analogy aptly captures Kerry’s diplomatic approach: persistent and determined, akin to a customer insisting on making a purchase before leaving the store. Yet, Kerry’s efforts, especially in the Middle East, mostly faced criticism and no success. His attempt to revive the Israeli-Palestinian peace process was met with skepticism, culminating in a quip from Israeli Defense Minister Moshe Ya’alon, who humorously suggested that someone should give Kerry a Nobel Peace Prize so that he can get out of Israel.
Read More: Tucker’s Interview of Putin: How Putin Justified his actions in Ukraine with historical context
The strategy of John Kerry during the Syrian crisis, particularly his visit to Moscow to seek assistance for a peace conference after Assad’s regime used chemical weapons against civilians, highlighted the challenges of balancing diplomatic ambitions with limited cognitive abilities. His meeting with Vladimir Putin, where he was made to wait three hours, and his subsequent statements about enforcing Obama’s “red line” with “unbelievably small” strikes, exemplified the difficulties in aligning American credibility with effective action on the international stage, especially with him presenting the case.
As the conflict in Syria escalated, with Russia and Iran bolstering Assad’s regime, efforts of John Kerry shifted towards organizing peace conferences and advocating for joint operations with Russia—initiatives that had no impact on the war’s outcome. During this period, the Democratic Party saw a shift in its foreign policy stance from humanitarian hawkishness to a more dove-like approach, with Kerry’s positions mirroring this transition.
Kerry’s time as Secretary of State is a testament to the fallouts of bad leadership, showcasing both the potential and the limitations of U.S. foreign policy in addressing the world’s most pressing challenges. Again with him presenting the case.
Under President Obama, John Kerry worked diligently to secure the Iran nuclear deal, aiming to mark a significant achievement in Obama’s legacy. Despite the deal’s ambition, it faced criticism for its concessions, notably from the French, and Kerry’s response to Iran’s violations, including ballistic missile testing and the capture of American sailors, was seen as insufficient, with Kerry expressing gratitude for the sailors’ release rather than addressing the provocations directly.
Kerry’s focus then shifted to climate change, an increasingly central issue for the progressive elite. He played a pivotal role in negotiations with China leading to the Paris climate accords. The United States committed to verifiable reductions in greenhouse gas emissions, while China was only required to promise to halt emission increases eventually. This agreement raised concerns among American allies, particularly with Kerry’s dismissive attitude towards Chinese assertiveness in the western Pacific, reflecting a misjudgment of international politics’ evolving dynamics.
Read More: Trump’s Victory Echoes: Americans Yearn for His Return
His perception of an orderly and peaceful world progression was challenged by Russia’s actions in Ukraine, leading to Kerry’s criticized response and unsuccessful diplomatic efforts to mitigate the situation. As Biden’s climate czar, Kerry’s tenure has been less controversial because frankly, he did nothing. In climate negotiations with China, he proved his immeasurable stupidity again.
Kerry’s advocacy for electric vehicles has been criticised for inadvertently benefiting China. His reduced visibility in this role underscored a broader issue within the Democratic Party: a misalignment between its foreign policy priorities and the current geopolitical challenges. As adversaries like China, Russia, and Iran assert their strength, Kerry’s and the party’s strategies appear increasingly out of step with the demands of the moment, emphasizing the need for a reassessment of America’s approach to maintaining its leadership in the international order.
Now that he is old and overused, it’s time to collectively chant Rest in Peace messages to John Kerry’s unremarkable career. He will go down in history as an overpaid underachiever with a perennial constipated expression on his face.