Eight Minutes for Foreign Policy?
Claire Berlinski, Ed. ·
Aug 12, 2011 at 3:38am
Two hours of debate. Eight minutes for foreign policy--at the end of the debate. Not one serious argument made about it.
Have we collectively decided as a nation that we don't need a foreign policy? Does foreign policy poll badly these days?
- Comment (23)
- · Quote
- · UnfollowFollow (1)
- Pages:
- 1
- 2
- Pages:
- 1
- 2
Comments :
Oct '10
Re: Eight Minutes for Foreign Policy?
<sigh> Your concern is spot on. All we need is an October (or other) surprise to change the focus, but then everybody will be playing catch-up.
Plus, none of the campaigns has shown any flair for inspiration toward the upside.
We have such a wide palette of opportunties, it's pathetic not to see anybody seizing them and running hard.
I'm uninspired but (as someone else said) ready to vote for a footstool over BHO.
Mar '11
Re: Eight Minutes for Foreign Policy?
Considering that foreign policy is a fundamental requirement for the job, one would think that it would get more emphasis than it did last night. Right now, the economy (what there still is of it) is sucking all the oxygen out of the room.
There is also the problem of attacking Obama on his foreign policy. He doesn't have one, or at least one that I can figure out how to identify.
May '10
Re: Eight Minutes for Foreign Policy?
Most Important Issue facing the Country
Two National Surveys of 1,000 Likely Voters
June 12-15. 2011 (Rasmussen)
Issue
Economy
74%
Health Care
69%
Taxes
63%
Gov't Ethics and Corruption
61%
Social Security
61%
Education
58%
Immigration
53%
National Security/War on Terror
47%
Afghanistan
24%
War in Iraq
21%
Sep '10
Re: Eight Minutes for Foreign Policy?
Journalists were controlling the content, so I guess your complaint should be directed at them, not the country. When journalists are given more or less free reign I expect little and am seldom disappointed. You should be grateful that Wallace didn’t take time to plug his wife’s cookbook.
Oct '10
Re: Eight Minutes for Foreign Policy?
As Claire constantly and correctly points out, the world is terribly complex and policy needs to be correspondingly nuanced (ahem). Within the ridiculous format of these set-piece debates how is a discussion of foreign policy going to avoid becoming (if the candidate are being honest):
Q: If you were President, what would your policy on <this week's crisis> be?
A: I don't know - I haven't been briefed by the folks at State and the CIA; and even if I had been, I might have to say one thing in public and another behind closed doors.
or (if they were being less than honest - or at least, illuminating):
A: I would respond consistently with my position as <insert International Relations label here>.
Foreign policy debates should be a matter of dueling Op-Eds unfolding over months, not soundbites. Who can doubt that the next foreign policy debate question was 'Can you name the Prime Minister of Ruritania?'
Re: Eight Minutes for Foreign Policy?
We live in a dangerous time. In times of terrible economic stress, people are apt to ignore foreign affairs. It is in times like these that nations sew the seeds of future defeat.
Feb '11
Re: Eight Minutes for Foreign Policy?
Think John Bolton was watching?
Feb '11
Re: Eight Minutes for Foreign Policy?
I don't know, I think the exchanges between Rick Santorum and Ron Paul provided a nice summary of the range of thought on foreign affairs in the party, especially for those unaware that there is a range of thought in the party. You're right that we'll need to get a more detailed view of the candidates' positions and postures, but there is plenty of time in the campaign to get it done.
Feb '11
Re: Eight Minutes for Foreign Policy?
Where is John Bolton? Why isn't he running?
May '10
Re: Eight Minutes for Foreign Policy?
Ed G.
Where is John Bolton? Why isn't he running? · Aug 12 at 6:43am
21st-century America's not ready for The 'Stache. Bigots!
May '10
Re: Eight Minutes for Foreign Policy?
Yes, I suppose a range of thought exists when the candidates' views run the gamut from hawkish to certifiably insane.
Speaking of, not only was the foreign policy discussion infinitesimal, far too much of it was devoted to Ron Paul foaming at the mouth and spitting nonsense (particularly over Iran, where his comments were positively jaw-dropping). I'd prefer that future debate sponsors pull a reverse Reagan on the Congressman: cut off his microphone until he pays for it.
May '10
Re: Eight Minutes for Foreign Policy?
The Santorum, Paul tradeoff was in my opinion the best part of the evening. It was the closest the event came to a real debate.
Mar '11
Re: Eight Minutes for Foreign Policy?
We didn't have time for foreign policy, Claire. We were too busy debating gay marriage and the candidates own marital vows.
Meanwhile, Japan is nervous about China's new aircraft carrier which we've also called on them to explain, China is not only building deep water ports in Pakistan but is stepping up its joint military training there, North Korea is shelling South Korea (again), the list goes on....
Feb '11
Re: Eight Minutes for Foreign Policy?
Matthew Gilley
Yes, I suppose a range of thought exists when the candidates' views run the gamut from hawkish to certifiably insane.
Speaking of, not only was the foreign policy discussion infinitesimal, far too much of it was devoted to Ron Paul foaming at the mouth and spitting nonsense (particularly over Iran, where his comments were positively jaw-dropping). I'd prefer that future debate sponsors pull a reverse Reagan on the Congressman: cut off his microphone until he pays for it. · Aug 12 at 7:14am
Oh come on, Matthew Gilley. I seriously disagree with Ron Paul's foreign policy positions too, but "certifiably insane" is a bit overboard, no? Writing off all the voters who actually think he has a point (and there is a kernel of a point, imho) is a sure way to guarantee a loss come election time. Heck, there's even an awful big bunch right here at Ricochet that would dispute your characterization. No, his ideas need to be heard - and then defeated in debate.
Feb '11
Re: Eight Minutes for Foreign Policy?
Crow's Nest: We didn't have time for foreign policy, Claire. We were too busy debating gay marriage and the candidates own marital vows.
Meanwhile, Japan is nervous about China's new aircraft carrier which we've also called on them to explain, China is not only building deep water ports in Pakistan but is stepping up its joint military training there, North Korea is shelling South Korea (again), the list goes on.... · Aug 12 at 9:07am
Crow's Nest, the debate isn't about you. It's fine with me that you don't care about gay marriage or even personal characteristics, but others certainly think these things are worth exploring. So where's the snark coming from? Do you really think we won't ever wade into foreign policy in a serious way?
May '10
Re: Eight Minutes for Foreign Policy?
Ed G. - I have yet to hear anyone on Ricochet argue that Iran's pursuit of nuclear weapons is of no concern to the U.S. In fact, the folks here that advocate positions similar to Ron Paul do so much more coherently and sensibly than Paul does. Paul is a malign influence on the conservative movement and his personality is a millstone around libertarians' necks. Libertarians will not have the influence they deserve as long as they are handcuffed to him. We'll all be better off when he's retired.
Feb '11
Re: Eight Minutes for Foreign Policy?
His take on Iran's nuclear ambitions stems from a legitimate view - i.e. that it's best if we just mind our own business and not get involved in the affairs of other nations. Now, again, I think such a policy is seriously incorrect, especially the nuclear Iran part, but I wouldn't say someone is insane for making a case. The truth is that there probably is a point at which it's more costly to us, in terms of lives and resources, to intervene than it is to deal with whatever comes next. I just disagree that we're anywhere near that point.
Mar '11
Re: Eight Minutes for Foreign Policy?
Ed: I'm both baffled and frustrated by your response. How have you managed to construe Claire's lament about foreign policy not being taken seriously enough, and my concurrence (however sharply worded) into something that has anything to do with me personally?
The most numerous and most expansive powers of the Executive Office lie in the realm of foreign and defense policy. The President has far more formal control here on how the United States reacts to events and threats abroad—and we live in times where they are likely to face very significant challenges—than they do in the realm of social issues where the office has some symbolic value. I’d like some assurance they have more than a passing acquaintance with the problems of the day.
I am not saying that social issues have no importance. They do: they go straight to the heart of how strong the bonds of our society are at home. Places in which social breakdown occurs are incapable of managing the other challenges before them and social breakdown has other, darker consequences (see Britain's riots).
But the President isn't the healer in chief, he is the Commander in Chief.
Feb '11
Re: Eight Minutes for Foreign Policy?
Crow's Nest
Ed: I'm both baffled and frustrated by your response. How have you managed to construe Claire's lament about foreign policy not being taken seriously enough, and my concurrence (however sharply worded) into something that has anything to do with me personally?
Well, when you say:
We didn't have time for foreign policy, Claire. We were too busy debating gay marriage and the candidates own marital vows.
That sounds to me like a snarky way of saying that too much time was spent on trifling issues (to you) while not nearly enough time was spent on a more important topic (to you). Otherwise, why put the lament in terms of a comparison or competition?
On the other hand, if all you intended is that you'd like to hear more about the candidates' foreign policy positions, then I fully agree and I suspect that we'll get exactly that as the campaign progresses. Besides, I'm not so certain that a debate with eight people on stage is the best forum for a foreign policy discussion; it might be more productive with about half that number participating.
Mar '11
Re: Eight Minutes for Foreign Policy?
Ed: Because there is only so much time in any debate, it is always a choice of what to focus on. I think Fox put their energy into asking some question which, while valuable, are not within the top 10 concerns of American families today.
But even more importantly, there is only so much an administration can do: what battles is it going to prioritize as its first?
I understand that there are plenty of folks who feel very passionately about the marriage issue. It is plenty worth having a conversation about. We should know where the candidates stand.
But every single one of them, except Huntsman who has no chance, objects to gay marriage. Case closed, we have their opinion.
Foreign policy, meanwhile, is a huge topic in which the President exercises their most important powers, and there are significant disagreements (and confusions) within the field.
So, I was being snarky, and justly so. The question of gay marriage is important, but less important questions of foreign policy in a time of war and economic policy in a time of fiscal calamity. If you don't think so, you've got your priorities misaligned.