What was missing from last night's debate? Anyone? Bueller?

[...] Looks like Dan Drezner feels about the same way I do about the scope of the questions for this ‘foreign policy’ debate. Of course, he [...]

I was surprised at the lack of an Israel/Palestine question. Israel was talked about briefly as part of the Iran discussion, but not at all in relation to peace talks and a two-state strategy.

Additionally, no discussions of:
* The Bush Doctrine and whether pre-emptive war will be a continued policy in the next administration
* Sudan and America's proper response to Genocide (though McCain touched on this when talking about Kosovo but qualified it with saying it was appropriate to take action because it was in Europe).
* NAFTA and trade policy where there is undoubtedly a rather striking difference between the two candidates.

I bet Lehrer's next question was going to be about China, but if you recall, about an hour in, Lehrer mentioned that the time so far had been evenly divided but that they were consistently exceeding the five minutes for open exchange on each question.

I would have liked to know what the candidates plan to do about North Korea's nuclear program.

Latin/South America/Mexico are brewing trouble spots. We just ignore them. Big mistake IMO.

Steve

What, nothing about Palin?

There were 5 key foreign policy topics that should have reasonably been mentioned in a 90-minute debate:

1.) Iraq and Iran

2.) Afghanistan and Pakistan

On the first two: Obama clearly positioned his points around the importance and dangers in Afghanistan and Pakistan, whereas McCain was concentrating on the Middle East. The reason is fairly straightforward: one appears to be improving (Iraq) and the other is rapidly deteriorating (Afghanistan).

3.) North Korea (I think North Korea is actually less important than some other topics, but because of President Bush's failures here and because of its rhetorical linkage to Iran, it couldn't help but be mentioned).

4.) Russia (I think both candidates were relatively weak in their response here. That said, Obama's framing of the issue was much more plausible than McCain's).

5.) China

After the Olympics, I suspect many Americans are more concerned about a resurgent China than ever before. Obama did try to bring up China toward the end--vis-a-vis their increased presence in the world relative to American decline--though they were clearly running short on time. China should have been the number 3 topic, after Iraq/Iran and Afghanistan/Pakistan. I suppose it could be argued that Russia was a more immediate subject, but clearly China should have been a more substantial part of the debate than: "They hold a trillion dollars of our debt!"

Yes. So let's talk about that. It would have been natural to segway from the opening discussion of the financial crisis into a broader talk about China. That said, it would have likely involved little more than talking points on both sides: China is our friend; obviously, they are repressive, but we must work together to ensure our continued growth, etc. etc. Maybe it's good they stuck to the Middle East/Central Asia, where slightly less cautious rhetoric was called for.

There was very little substance in the debate, mostly regurgitation of fragments from their past speeches. Pakistan is shooting at US helicopters, yet each candidate acts like the only issues there are when the US should attack inside Pakistan and whether it was wrong for Obama (who seems excessively anxious to prove how tough he is or would be) to say that he would strike bin Laden inside Pakistan if the Paks won't do it themselves.

I'm an Obama supporter. I prefer his calm approach to foreign affairs and all issues to the impulsive acts of old fool John McCain (I'm the same age as he is, I am also a Vietnam veteran but was never captured or wounded) - I feel able to say that McCain's judgment is not as good as it was in 1995- wasn't too good then as shown by his vigorous role in the Keating 5 scandal. Whether his bad judgment is just the result of his desire to appease conservatives or whether it represents biological deterioration isn't clear to me. I'm not worried about his melanoma history; I don't want an impulsive macho in charge of our government and I can't imagine that Palin's judgment would be any better.

Loose nukes/ nuclear terrorism. Obama wisely brought this into an answer at the end of the debate, as he should each and every time he talks about foreign policy. This is arguably the most dangerous threat facing the American public today, and Obama has been on the right side of the issue, with the right attention given to it, from the beginning of his campaign. But regardless of who you support, this should be talked about much more.

Other than that, the folks at that ONE group were trying to get a question asked about fighting global poverty, disease, and inequality. These issues, as usual, didn't really get touched, but it would have been interesting to see how the candidates would address them (other than the vague and noncontroversial 'I support eradicating these things'). Particularly interesting would have been to see how Obama treated Bush's record here (specifically on Africa), since this is one area where many people seem to agree that Bush has done some good work.

Just for fun, I would have liked a "How exactly do you plan to capture or kill Osama bin Laden?" question.

How about sovereign wealth funds and what they mean for American power? Or, perhaps, whether either candidate actually knows what a sovereign wealth fund is? (OK, I didn't really expect this one to be a hot topic...).

Daniel,

I believe Obama talked about China, and China's influence in the world. Lehrer may not have brought it up, but Obama did.

Canada. And how awesome it is.

OK, I'm going to suggest something really, really heretical. Seriously. Maybe China didn't come up because it's not as big a deal as many people think it is. Yes, there are human rights issues, environmental issues...big ones. But, despite China's undeniable ginormousness and more than occasional bellicosity, odious policies, etc., it's not clear that a US president needs to worry about China wigging out and doing something dangerous in the same way that they might want to worry about, say, Iran or North Korea. I'm not saying China's not an issue. It's a big one. I'm just saying that if you're running for President of the US post-9/11, it might not be at the top of the list of things to talk about.

Hey, maybe we can outsource the management of our financial sector to the Chinese.

I was thinking the same thing, actually. I was astounded at how many important issues weren't discussed at all.

I wrote a blog post about it this morning:
http://zzzeitgeist.blogspot.com/2008/09/post-debate-thoughts.html

I was pretty sure I wasn't gonna hear anything about Latin American issues, but still I would've liked to hear what did both candidates thought about the region and its plans for it. After all, not long ago both Venezuela and Bolivia had some pretty harsh words to say about the US...

I think the US is used to handle Latin America with relative ease. During the 90s US policy towards L.A. was basically to say "stabilize, privatize, and liberalize", and that pretty much solved every problem.

Nowadays, the region is more complex. Not only do you have the usual problems (inequality, poverty, crime, corruption, etc.) You now have Chavez in Venezuela making friends in Moscow and Beijing, you have Morales in Bolivia destabilizing the Andes, and you have a generalized anti-system, anti-free-markets feeling throughout most of the region.

3 words just won't be enough to handle L.A. anymore. In my opinion the US should focus a little bit more (just a little!) on this region, before we are all lost to Chavez.

Foreign Policy is McCain's strong suit...which explains why it was given short shrift.

So, what should have been left out in order to talk about China?

I think the China question would have led to a lot of platitudes about being engaged but cautious. They are a key to our negotiations with the Norks etc.
A bigger ommission was the Israel/Palestine. It would have been an interesting discussion.
Someone should have brought up Russia's interest in developing Venezuela's nuclear program. Rather disturbing, don't ya think?

I for one will be interested in hearing what McCain thinks about China. If his track record on Vietnam is any indication, he might well be an engaged realist and less of a China hawk than his generally hawkish outlook would suggest. Kissinger will also be instrumental in shaping his perception of China, and Kissinger is a closet Sinophile.

Sure, there is a certain anti-China red meat demographic that politicians from both parties pander to from time to time, but by and large, American Presidents when they take office tend to be excellent on China; perhaps State's China analysts are doing a top job and providing sound advice? Against the grain at an often dysfunctional State but there you have it.

Bush always takes a beating on foreign policy but no one ever notices how adroit he is on China on everything from Taiwan to bilateral trade. Apart from a slight hiccup early in his presidency, he has been spot on. That U.S.-China relations are on an even keel and at its smoothest is mostly down to firm and constructive diplomacy on the part of this administration. The Chinese, believe it or not, appreciate it. And there is a lot of goodwill bleeding over into, e.g., the 6 party talks.

[...] blogger Dan Drezner watched the debate and asked, rhetorically, which foreign policy topic was missing. The answer is China. Nary a word was spoken [...]

What has everyone overlooked about last night’s debate? Anyone? Bueller?

McCain's remark implying replacing the United Nations with a "League of Democracies".

Sure the US will probably participate in the United Nations, still retaining a seat on the UN Security Council (doubt anyone will show). Our ambassador to the UN will probably be a random 20-year US Marine retiree (wounded in combat several times). This particular Marine will probably spend every meeting discussing the family-tree and sexual preferences of the various dictatorships that participate in th United Nations, while announcing another cut in the US Appropriation to the United Nations, while announcing another reduction in overall UN Visas issued. Needless to say, the UN will wither on the vine.

Ah, experts - what would we do without them! China, with a median age of 32, has the fastest aging rate in the world thanks to the one-child policy. Per capita GDP is less than $6000 and they will face labor shortages within the next few years. They are going to get old before they get rich.
There is no American decline, despite the recent slew of books claiming so - the current financial crisis was partly caused by the fact the America is the world's only large, deep economy with a growing population.

Canada and Mexico. Ya know, our neighbors (besides Russia of course)...

With too much time taken on the recent financial crisis legislation, expect more questions about these countries when it comes to domestic policy and free trade with Northeast Asia. For example:

1. FTA's with South Korea (and Columbia)?
2. Japan, still second largest economy in the world, leader in green technologies, and origin of the largest group of growing/investing auto manufacturers in the US (Honda, Toyota, Nissan).
3. Chinese investments in questionable nation states, and US reaction

I agree that Latin America was the second big one. American ties via trade and population (via immigrants from Latin America) only grow every year, while at the same time multiple Latin American governments have been overtly hostile to not only the American government, but American ideology as well. Yet there was not a single question directly on this.

I'd also go beyond China to point out that there wasn't a single direct question on anything with regards to the Far East (meaning the "oriental countries"). What should America's role be in the wake of rising China? What about South Korea? I think an absolutely interesting piece of interrogative dynamite for a moderator to throw at a candidate would be to ask if it would be worth it to give South Korea nukes in exchange for less of a US role in the country militarily, or if the United States should encourage Japan to re-arm.

There is no American decline, despite the recent slew of books claiming so - the current financial crisis was partly caused by the fact the America is the world’s only large, deep economy with a growing population.

Exactly wrong, Jean. When the numbers are run on the crisis, we are going to find that a disproportionate share of the bad debt that got us into this mess was issued to recent immigrants. We are trying to have a first world economy with a population that increasingly resembles that of a Latin American country in terms of skills, knowledge and other traits. Its not going to work. We've just seen the birth of Brazil north.

I've never cared for the single-moderator format, regarding it as too protective of the candidates. Jim Lehrer, aging now and never a particularly sharp questioner, made it even more so Friday night. Discussion about which foreign and national security subjects were missed should take account of Lehrer's own limitations.

In the context of the campaign right now -- which over the last week or so has seen several developments unfavorable to McCain -- the important thing was whether the debate helped McCain stop the bleeding. It did.

Obama partisans have been exerting themselves to come up with theories that explain why the debate was a big win for their guy. Josh Marshall's "monkey theory" is my current favorite. To me, Obama looked bloodless, repeating stylized campaign rhetoric about "the failed policies of the last eight years" that took for granted the debate audience's ability to make the connection to the very unpopular President Obama is trying to succeed. One of Obama's best lines, about restoring respect for America in the world, was even delivered without elaboration as to who had made America lose respect in the world.

The bleeding will probably resume shortly for McCain. When one Presidential candidate is trying to succeed a President of his own party who has had disapproval ratings above 60% for a good two years, and people are talking about an economic collapse....well, let's just say the odds are against him. But Obama only won last Friday's debate if his campaign's November objective was to slip across the finish line just ahead of McCain. The Democrats could have nominated Dan this year and still accomplished that.

Mitchell,
And exactly why was credit extended? Both FDI flows and willingness to purchase US debt show that the rest of the world doesn't have anywhere else to go. Capitalism produces bubbles - from the dot com craze back through tulip bulbs and South Sea islands. We could all see the housing market was in a bubble - Helen Keller could have seen it - yet everyone thought the party would continue forever - as in every bubble. Brazil? Um, WTF? The risk was spread globally, and as the US has a more flexible economy than just about anyone else, and a healthier demographic profile, I believe most of the pain will be felt abroad. Hint - the EU has no treasury.

# 6 above: "After the Olympics, I suspect many Americans are more concerned about a resurgent China than ever before."

Sadly I think that "most" Americans could not find China on a map, much less be concerned about China. I think most Americans are more worried about the latest cell phone or fashion than China.

And exactly why was credit extended?

If you mean why was credit extended in the US by US banks:

At least part of the answer is that there was political pressure to increase the number of sub-prime loans to minorities-- and of course the biggest minority in the country now are Latinos, most of whom are either immigrants our first generation. This is what is driving what you call a 'healthy demography'. Unfortunately, Latinos (i.e. mostly Mexicans) and their descendants perform below the white average in terms of educational attainment, standardized testing, and economic status -- lo, even unto the third generation. See for example.

http://www.ericdigests.org/2004-3/latino.html

And of course mass immigration means higher housing prices due to increased demand ... LA is the highest priced area in the country. But a couple years ago the LA United Way found that 53% of the working age adult population wasn't functionally literate in English.

http://www.unitedwayla.org/getinformed/news/Documents/Literacy_at_Work_Fact_Sheet.pdf

The situation is just not sustainable.

If you mean why did foreign countries extend credit to US, I'd agree that for a while there we were the only place to go. And there is an advantage to being the military hyperpower. But that is changing. The Chinese are using the dollars we ship them not only to put men in space, but are starting to invest to control resources (land especially) in China.

You are right that foreign banks who invested in the US are getting hurt... Britain nationalised one and is about to nationalise a second. You don't think that this whole mess is going to make others think twice and three times about investing the America?

I think this answers why no questions were asked about China: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I-IvjXnkHwA

As a former resident of Seattle, where a light rail system is being built connected to the airport, an airport which has been expanded the last few years and is getting an additional runway...

I think I can honestly say that Obama has no clue what he's talking about.

I meant the Chinese are investing in land in Africa. Even with the post-post edit possibilities I can't get it right.

George,

Have you ever been outside the US? For the most part the infrastructure in our country is deteriorating, and most public buildings look pretty shoddy compared to Europe or the more developed countries in Asia. Obama's basic point is correct - China is investing in the future, we are not.

Europe was not discussed, probably because Americans (policy makers and general public) do not consider it a big enough issue.

However, IMO, the most glaring omission in the debate was the complete absence of any discussion on the relationship between a troubled US domestic economy and achievement of proposed US foreign policy goals.

[...] WPR blog), Russia (Robert Amsterdam here and here) or Ukraine (Taras’ post).  [UPDATE]:  or what was omitted from the [...]

[...] the most striking thing about the debate came toward the end, when Jim Lehrer invited the two candidates to spend all of two minutes talking about Russia. Despite the recent [...]

[...] the Internet can easily find out where the candidates stand on them.  Meanwhile, what Dan Drezner pointed out in the first debate still holds true today: neither candidate has been asked about China. No [...]