Further thoughts on the debate

Hey Dan,

And again, no mention of China. Well, not totally true. McCain mentioned in passing that we owed money to China, that China is a trading partner, and that Russia and China are on the Security Council. But it's spectacularly shocking to me that under both economics and foreign policy and anxiety about America's role in the world, no discussion. I actually do blame a subtle European bias in the education of those people selecting the debate questions.

I have to say what I find even more disturbing than their positions on trade is that there is no daylight between their positions on foreign policy. Am I the only one that is somewhat irked by the fact that there is no choice other than liberal internationalism for the American voter anymore? Yeah they both paid lip service to the fact that America has limited resources and can't police every corner of the world, but as financial armageddon approaches what else are they going to say? It is the soaring rhetoric that has me worried. Both of them want to make the world safe for democracy and stick the US into plenty of areas where there is no vital US interest. Being somewhat of a realist myself, I really don't see that as a "prudent use of military force".

I have a feeling that the reality of the financial meltdown has not yet hit, or at least the two nominees aren't going to publicly voice what that may be thinking.

The credit mess will make international relations a whole lot more messy, and I worry globalization will be attacked and get replaced by batten-down-the-hatches xenophobia, trade barriers, and worse.

Five years ago, the situation was precisely the opposite. Expanding, globalized trade was generally regarded as a good thing, while the terrorist threat weighed heavily on everyone's minds.

I think it's fair to call Sen. McCain a liberal internationalist (as well as a free trader). That's his record. It is also, generally, Sen. Biden's record. Sen. Obama doesn't really have a record, and if elected will probably be making up a lot of his foreign policy orientation in response to circumstances. There's no getting around something, though -- many, many ideas otherwise compatible with liberal internationalism are just not practical as long as the United States maintains its massive commitment in Iraq. The drain imposed by that commitment on our financial resources, our military establishment, and (not least) on the time and attention of our senior foreign and national security policy officials effectively precludes a foreign policy that does more than react to events in most areas of the world.

This might be slightly less true in an administration that made foreign policy through orderly procedures, instead of through neverending tests of bureaucratic strength among competing power centers. In the long run -- which is to say, within the next two years or so -- the commitment in Iraq will need to be liquidated, or the only thing left of liberal internationalism will be the attitude.

Right now, I'm wiling to cut them slack on foreign policy matters, particularly Obama, whose temperament is not warlike. The American public has not yet been prepared for the inevitable loss of empire. Candidates have to project a strong, reassuring image on national security. It's up to a responsible individual in office to start to gradually extricate ourselves from excessive commitments overseas, and between Barack Obama and the world economic crisis, we have a great opportunity to do that -- a hawkish but peacefully inclined multilateralist, who can point out that we need to put country first and overseas escapades well down the list, and can protect our country better without a lot of foreign wars.

Chris, I agree 100%. The obvious linkage, that we will inevitably have to cut our military/foreign policy responsibilities due to this economic crisis, has gotten little to no discussion. I'd vote for either of these guys who was willing to come out and say something realistic about this, including the possible consequences.

At this point, watching the debates is just painful. Throughout high school and now in college, understanding politics and world affairs is something that I have taken seriously. I wanted to learn about how all of these institutions work and how so many terrifying things are able to occur in the world that I live in. I wanted to learn how these systems work so one day... I could fix them. I wanted to learn about these things because I believed that they are important- but this long, arduous election process has eroded so much of the enthusiasm I once had for politics.

Because of the current crises, all everyone wants to talk about, hear about, or hysterically panic about is either the economy or foreign affairs- oh, and healthcare. I felt both candidates were redundant and long-winded. Tom Brokaw had to continuously remind the candidates that they were remarkably exceeding their speaking limits. Each candidate ate up a lot of speaking time with typical introductions and hokey colloquialisms. I felt like I got absolutely nothing out of the debate- but maybe I shouldn't be surprised. If I had to use one word, I would call last night's "debate" flaccid.

Dan- I whole-heartedly agree with your post. A lot of the topics were channeled through a realist perspective. Energy, foreign policy, and economic discussions were all argued as security issues- the decline of the United State's super power status is dangerous as other rival nations will attempt to get ahead in the balance of power. Both candidates feebly attempted to tack on uninspired visions of hope to arguments over America's impending doom. Coming from a realist perspective, McCain emphasized his hypothetical ability to protect the country with his military experience on an individual level. Obama supported his liberal ideologies by emphasizing funding for government institutions on a domestic level, with the hope that these government programs will help Americans grow strong on an individual level.

I think the non-mention of China may be deliberate. china is in a strong position, but it is not popular among the US electorate. Pandering to the populace on China therefore could well be cheap and short-sighted. We may have to go to china to ask them to help manage the crisis; it's really best to make a real effort NOt to piss them off beforehand, don't you think?

Anything we do with China will of course need to be negociated with China; a candidate who claimed that he would negociate anything specific with China would be spouting palapable bullshit. A candidate who stated what he would be willing to give up in the deal would either be telegraphing his hand or delivering an insult. Stoooopid!

Especially as there doesn't seem to be anything we can actually DO to them at the moment - not something they would notice anyway. Sometimes it can be an act of statesmanship to keep one's mouth - tightly shut.

Isn't it nice to know that both candidates have been keeping an eye on actually governing this country after the election? At least on some issues?

"an administration that made foreign policy through orderly procedures, instead of through neverending tests of bureaucratic strength among competing power centers"

I am trying to think of an administration that matched this description during my lifetime, but I can't. Maybe Eisenhower? (I was only 2 when left office.) Certainly no administration since could fairly be described in this fashion.

Foreign policy making in the first Bush administration was very orderly. President Reagan's administration prospered when it coordinated clashing views from State and Defense through the National Security Adviser's office late in his term (actually, Reagan's greatest foreign policy failures came when he was induced to disregard the views of both State and Defense). Nixon dominated foreign policy through his Security Adviser, shutting other power centers out. Clinton's administration evolved an unusual set of procedures that gave different parts of the administration primacy when dealing with specific issues (the White House for Ireland and the Middle East, the State Department for former Yugoslavia, Treasury for the currency crises that hit Mexico and Southeast Asia in the late '90s).

Orderly process does not guarantee good policy; a badly flawed process (like the hall of mirrors of Nixon's first term) can still produce inspired policy given the right personnel. What we need to understand is that right now, America's decreased margin for error in international affairs overlaps with the consequences of a disastrous bureaucratic tangle within the Bush administration, one far worse than those created by its recent predecessors. A new President, particularly if he is a foreign policy novice himself, will save himself no end of trouble by imposing the discipline of procedures for consultation and decision on his foreign policy team right at the start, to ensure that neither in Washington nor overseas is there any doubt about who speaks for the American government about international affairs.

I think that Dan's characterization of McCain as an economic isolationist is demonstrably false -McCain has been a free trader and has never touted for more protectionism.It would be Obama who is an isolationist.

Besides, we will need to get ready for the most protectionist Congress in the last 3 decades- the Dems will have filibuster proof majority and we can expect a lot of pressure to "re-negotiate" NAFTA - heck, they already snuffed out the Colombian free trade deal this year.

Let's have some basic facts straight -if there is a filibuster proof Congress, the odds are that Obama will cave into pretty much every demand. It will start with the Employee "free choice" Act but it is going to include more protectionist barriers like "environmental and labor" standards BS.

Do we all need to start calling each other "comrades" now :-)