Ricochet is the best place on the internet to discuss the issues of the day, either through commenting on posts or writing your own for our active and dynamic community in a fully moderated environment. In addition, the Ricochet Audio Network offers over 50 original podcasts with new episodes released every day.
Why Marco Rubio Should Join Ricochet
Marco Rubio gave a short speech at the Council on Foreign Relations on Wednesday, after which he took a few questions from the audience. It put some journalists into raptures: “He delivered a master class on foreign policy” wrote Tim Mak. I figured I’d better see this for myself.
Yes, yes, I know, watching the whole thing takes too much time. You’d rather just read the transcript. That’s what I thought, but I couldn’t find it. No, not just the speech, the Q&A. That’s what I want you to watch.
Back up for a second. One of our new members wrote a great first post the other day. He had a clever idea for getting a bit more debate out of the upcoming Republican debate cycle. (As he explained, he’s been lurking on Ricochet since the founding days of this place, but he only recently took the plunge and joined. CL, man, we’re so glad you finally got here. No, of course you’re not too late. Come on in. Just throw your coat over there with all the others. Have a seat, have a glass of wine, the party’s only starting. The rest of you clever lurkers, don’t stand on ceremony. Click here for your free first month.)
Okay, back to Rubio.
I’m not going to give the speech a point-by-point review. Rubio is very likeable. He said some things with which I agree and some I don’t. He sounds like someone who reads the news every day. He didn’t confuse Iran and Iraq. He didn’t look like a deer caught in the headlights.
But we have a poverty-of-low-expectations crisis going on here. Shouldn’t we expect that as an absolute baseline in a presidential candidate? On his first day in office, he’ll be the Commander-in-Chief of United States military, and he won’t have time to learn about any of this once he’s elected. Any candidate who can’t get through twenty minutes of easy Q&A at this stage should never have got that far in the first place. That’s the bare minimum we should expect.
That’s not to say I didn’t like what I saw. I would be very willing to hear him out. But I don’t want the soundbites. I don’t want to know that if asked about about a serious issue, he can manage fifteen seconds without causing an international incident or saying something he’ll never live down. That’s the least I expect.
I’d like to watch a thoughtful, informed interviewer sit down with him for a few hours–yes, hours–and have an adult conversation with him. One that involves follow-up questions. Not adversarial questions designed to lure him into a trap, but questions that allow me to really hear his arguments and understand how he thinks.
I don’t want the candidates to tell me, over and over, how badly Obama’s screwed everything up. I know that. I don’t want to hear what we should have done. It’s too late. I want to hear what they think we should do–and why. I want to know if they make sense when presented with polite, sincere, serious, and sustained counter-arguments. And I cannot imagine any debate format, frankly, in which that will happen.
The other day, Titus started a conversation about whether we still need aircraft carriers. If you haven’t read the post and the ensuing discussion, have a look. Having read them, consider what Rubio says about this issue: from 48:20 to 48:33.
Thirteen seconds is not enough time to make any kind of serious argument. I’m not criticizing him for failing to do the impossible. I just want to know whether he’s able to make a serious argument in a context where it would be possible. I want to know whether he’s given as much thought to this question as everyone who commented on Titus’s post. That’s not an unreasonable standard, is it? And it’s entirely possible he has. But I won’t know from watching these speeches and debates. We’ll hear the same soundbites over and over. Interviewers will try to lure the candidates into embarrassing gaffes. No one will ask serious follow-up questions. We’ll flit from topic to topic without learning if any of the candidates have considered these issues deeply. We’ll hear the same quick, canned crowd-pleasers over and over. And we’ll find this normal.
But why? I’d know so much more about Marco Rubio if he joined Ricochet and had a few discussions with us. We’ve recently debated many of these issues–seriously, politely, and in far more depth. We do it in a public format. No one here’s running for the highest elected office in the United States, but we’re able to do it. Why shouldn’t we know if the man who will actually have to make these decisions can discuss and defend his views just as thoughtfully?
It’s not Senator Rubio’s fault that modern mass politics gives candidates no chance to debate and develop their ideas like adults. It’s the medium, not the message. But we’ve solved that problem on Ricochet.
So Senator, why don’t you come on over and join us for a conversation. We’d love to have you. Click here for your free first month. Don’t worry, you’re not too late at all.
Published in Elections, Foreign Policy, General, Military, Politics
I like Man with the Axe’s suggestion of Peter Robinson doing Uncommon Knowledge interviews. Peter’s best trait as an interviewer is that he knows when to shut up and get out of the way. We would truly get a chance to learn their mind.
I don’t know if any candidate who’s not desperate would join the scrum of thread comments though.
Another thought… it would probably be political death, but am I the only one who would find it incredibly refreshing for a candidate to ever say, “I don’t know… what do you think?”.
We’re expecting Philosopher-Kings, and let’s be honest… they aren’t.
Yes, and if I wrote that post in a way that suggests I was blaming the candidates for it, I wrote it badly–that’s not what I meant. And when I blame “the press,” I have to also blame “consumers of the press,” because if there were a market for the kind of interview I have in mind, the press would do it. So we’re all to blame, but maybe let’s throw around blame less and think of this as a bad habit into which we’ve all slipped–we’re still new to the television age, politically; it’s not that surprising that we haven’t figured out how to get the best value out of that medium for testing political candidates.
I agree, and it’s a vicious cycle: the less people hear about these places, the less interested they are–and the easier it is for a candidate to get away with saying something very silly or untrue about our policy there.
I would have loved to hear Rubio talk more about the Free Trade Agreement with Colombia, for example: He’s obviously very bullish about it, and I’m sure he knows a lot about it. I never, ever see reporting on this in the news, so I have no idea how this is really going. I’ve heard rumors from a friend there that Colombians dropped the tariffs, so US exporters aren’t paying them, but then slapped hidden taxes on the products–with the money going into corrupt officials’ pockets. The net effect is these US companies aren’t getting the level playing field they were promised, and Colombians aren’t benefitting from the elimination of tariffs. True? I don’t know, but that’s something NPR–or someone–could and should do reporting on, don’t you think? I don’t know if it’s true, but rumors like that sound all-too-plausible to me.
If that’s happening, it’s something we should know about. It’s something that affects us. So I’d like both to be reading about how this agreement is going, in practice–regularly–and to hear a follow-up question if someone like Rubio says it’s going well. Not a gotcha question, just the question I’d ask if I were having lunch with him: “I”ve heard this is going on. Is that true? As far as you know, has the agreement resulted in the level playing field US companies were promised?”
And, if he says it’s not, I’d naturally ask, “Do you have any thoughts about how to improve that situation, and how to make sure other such agreements are enforced?”
Yes, exactly. It’s a place where a candidate can sound mock-smart, which is fine–that’s a good skill for a candidate to have–but we should expect that we’ll get a chance to see whether there’s depth there at some point. And what I’m saying is that the way we’ve got things set up now, the candidates will never be in a forum in which we’d get to see that, and that’s wrong–we should expect that. It’s also unfair and disadvantageous to candidates who might have it.
I agree, which is why I suggested it. I’m very serious–I think it’s a much better idea for them to join us than to do events like the CFR debate, both for them and for us.
He did–I remember. But he posted a very tame, boilerplate piece that was obviously just a rephrasing of some part of the stump speech or campaign blurb–and then he didn’t join the discussion. What I want is for them to just come and talk with us as we talk with each other.
I hugely doubt it. The problem is that we don’t get the chance to know what they know or hear how they think about problems. You know that I think about what’s in the news every day because we talk about it here every day. You’d have no idea after hearing me speak about these subjects for as little time as the candidates do. Any bright, well-coached candidate can make it through a short speech and a quick Q&A. (The ones who can’t shouldn’t be in it. If they’re too lazy to prepare for this, they’re too lazy for the job.)
Miss Claire, I do not wish to be blunt or too unpleasant–but I believe politicians cannot afford to be wrong in public or to say certain things honestly. Consider what you’re talking a form of friendship–talking together as rough equals, without hoping to acquire power or fearing danger. That is not the same as political friendship. At some point, Adams & Jefferson & Madison & Hamilton become enemies, however they may like to discuss common affairs in common. This difference between contemplation & action is not something I can help you overcome. If you can do it, you have my congratulations. If you cannot, some modification of your design is required, to accord with political life.
Yep, that’s another point at which I wanted a follow-up question. I wanted to know whether that was just a careless throw-em-some-red-meat talking point, or whether he truly believes there’s literally nothing we should not do to reduce the odds of a terrorist attack, which would make him a lunatic. A good follow-up question would be the one we’d naturally ask in conversation and the one you just did: “Never? Is there no degree of increased risk you’d accept to secure your rights and privacy?”
And I don’t think it should be impossible to find out what a candidate really believes about this, seeing as this is a very real debate to all Americans, one we talk about all the time, and has huge implications. We’re entitled to know if these guys can discuss this like adults.
Again, that’s why it occurred to me: Wouldn’t it be much better if he just joined Ricochet? We’re not antagonistic with each other here. We have rules against being rude, and we enforce them, and it works.
I think the eventual nominee will be the candidate who realizes:
The last election proved that cooperating with CNN, ABC, and the rest does more harm than good. Obama has ignored FNC for 8 years and it hasn’t hurt him at all.
My only addition to your (excellent) suggestion would be to describe a case that was marginally over the line. I’ve little doubt that Rubio doesn’t think we should have an Amerikan Statsi, but presumably there more realistic suggestions that would also meet with his disapproval.
Put another way I’d like a fairly plausible example of a proposal to which President Rubio would respond “General, I’ve no doubt that would be useful, but I can’t authorize that.”
I sure hope so. The last 14 years have not given me confidence.
I will say this: Rubio’s intelligence and fluency on foreign affairs is amazingly refreshing, even if I find some of his conclusions wrong.
No, but neither’s all the phony baby-kissing and hand-shaking and sound-biting and photo-opping, and the public knows this, and that’s why they can’t stand Washington.
I don’t think this forum would force a candidate to say things that are politically indefensible. We can certainly be more frank among ourselves than anyone who’s going to have to deal with these problems for real. (Obviously, no political candidate can afford to say, “Let’s face it this like adults, folks: Cuba’s a human-rights paradise for Christians compared to Saudi Arabia–seems our staunch allies there have just passed a law that allows the death penalty for anyone who tries to smuggle in a copy of the Bible–but we have to keep calling them our friends because of all that oil they’ve got, that’s just the way it is. Trust me, if there’s an interruption to that, it will make the global financial crisis look like a hiccup. And we need them to keep the boot on Putin’s neck, cause they’re the only ones who can do it, so we’ll keep asking them politely to stop funding the world’s most whacko terrorist groups, and you guys keep the Kingdom in your prayers. Pray it doesn’t completely blow up. Because we need some kind of state there–unless you’ve got a better idea. They may be bastards, and they’re not even our bastards, but the real world’s a bad place.”)
You can’t say that if there’s any chance you might be president. For many reasons. I do understand that.
But some of these issues might be discussed in slightly less frank manner. When a candidate intimates that strong American leadership could in itself result in the Gulf states organizing themselves to bring the Syrian civil war to a peaceful resolution–without the commitment of American ground troops–I’d like to ask a few polite follow-up questions about this. Such as whether he has a geopolitical precedent in mind.
That answer would give me a sense of whether he does in fact know the score (but won’t say it for the obvious reasons) or whether he’s outright delusional. That’s a big and important difference.
It is–and I was just as enraptured by that as you were–until I realized how weird that was. Of course he should be intelligent and fluent about foreign affairs, he’s telling us that he’s the best qualified man in America to be the president of the United States. It doesn’t make sense that our first reaction is to watch with our mouths agape, as if he just parted the Red Sea, because he managed to get through half an hour of foreign policy talk without making a hideous gaffe. Why are our expectations so low?
We’re like battered women who are so impressed that a guy didn’t beat us on the first date that we want to marry him. I mean, how did it happen that we’re saying to each other, “Wow, he’s articulate for a man who might be the President of the United States of America?”
I’ll start out with the standard disclaimer. At this point in time I am a Rubio supporter. The other night I watched Rand Paul speaking on foreign policy. I found him to be as feckless as President Obama albeit from a different direction. There was a time when America could count on two oceans to provide some protection and a chance to blunt a direct attack as far as time is concerned. Those days are over when seconds count against missiles. All the great domestic reforms will not matter if you cannot defend yourself from external threats.
If I can swerve back to the original proposal for a minute, let me say that it would be a very bad idea to have any serious presidential candidate as an active member of Ricochet. Let them lurk by all means, but the minute it becomes known that they are delivering themselves of unscripted thoughts in this forum the forum itself would become a political and media football. An invasion of D-bots, trolls and orcs would be sure to follow, etc.
Then the best result that could be hoped to come out of that would be that we might emerge a little deflated and with our collective hide, in both senses, still intact.
second.
I did have the chance to meet him last Fall, and speak with him briefly. We had time for on issue, immigration reform. I found in those few minutes solid knowledge and willingness to discuss openly and freely.
He was the featured guest speaker at a political rally for my new Senator, Bill Cassidy. The venue was small, and located in a heavily Hispanic (Honduran ancestry) populated suburb of New Orleans. FWIW, there has been a large Honduran presence there for over 100 years.
Rubio loves engaging with the public, but in this age of soundbites, and phrases taken completely out of context and published that way, I’m not so sure how his staff would advise him.
Perhaps, Claire could snag a long interview with him?
“I can’t say for sure, but wasn’t Paul Ryan a member – or one of his staff, at least? I got that feeling on 2012.”
No, KC, that was Paul Rahe but I can see how you got them confused. I think Fred Thompson and Mitch Daniels have contributed conversations. There have probably been others.
I was kindof thinking the same thing. I would absolutely love the candidates joining in discussions and I think frankly they would learn a lot about the electorate (at least primary voters). However, I don’t doubt that politically they are being told not to have a lot of substance down in writing for fear the “gotcha” press will blast away with items out of context. To me it would be fantastic to hear a well thought out and defended position instead of a bumper sticker slogan.
#o You know what? You are describing someone who might be an excellent Secretary of State!