A Carnival of Buncombe

 

At least since the birth of Ricochet, I’ve been dismayed that our election debates treat foreign policy and national security as an afterthought, at best. I well remember the final 2012 presidential debate, which was supposed to be the foreign policy debate,  and the way the candidates couldn’t wait to stop talking about it and return to domestic policy.

By the way, pop quiz: Don’t look. Who said the following?

“America remains the one indispensable nation.”

“Making sure that we’re bringing manufacturing back to our shores so that we’re creating jobs here … not rewarding companies that are shipping jobs overseas.”

“First of all, Israel is a true friend. It is our greatest ally in the region. And if Israel is attacked, America will stand with Israel.”

” … a nuclear Iran is a threat to our national security, and it is a threat to Israel’s national security. We cannot afford to have a nuclear arms race in the most volatile region of the world.”

“Iran is a state sponsor of terrorism. And for them to be able to provide nuclear technology to non-state actors, that’s unacceptable. And they have said that they want to see Israel wiped off the map.”

“It is also essential for us to understand what our mission is in Iran, and that is to dissuade Iran from having a nuclear weapon through peaceful and diplomatic means.”

“Well, we’re going to be finished [in Afghanistan] by 2014 … we’ll make sure we bring our troops out by the end of 2014. The commanders and the generals there are on track to do so. We’ve seen progress over the past several years. The surge has been successful and the training program is proceeding apace. There are now a large number of Afghan Security Forces, 350,000 that are ready to step in to provide security and we’re going to be able to make that transition by the end of 2014. So our troops will come home at that point.”

“[W]hat I think the American people recognize is after a decade of war it’s time to do some nation building here at home. And what we can now do is free up some resources, to, for example, put Americans back to work, especially our veterans, rebuilding our roads, our bridges, our schools, making sure that, you know, our veterans are getting the care that they need when it comes to post-traumatic stress disorder and traumatic brain injury, making sure that the certifications that they need for good jobs of the future are in place.”

“[We] are going to insist that China plays by the same rules as everybody else. I know Americans had seen jobs being shipped overseas; businesses and workers not getting a level playing field when it came to trade.”

“I’ve watched year in and year out as companies have shut down and people have lost their jobs because China has not played by the same rules, in part by holding down artificially the value of their currency. It holds down the prices of their goods. It means our goods aren’t as competitive and we lose jobs. That’s got to end.”

“I want a great relationship with China. China can be our partner, but — but that doesn’t mean they can just roll all over us and steal our jobs on an unfair basis.”

The other night I got my wish: a debate in which all the candidates focused on foreign policy. It reminded me to be careful what I wish for.

Could Americans genuinely believe that wars are won by fighting “political correctness?” That naming the enemy properly is the magical secret to winning them? That Petraeus, Keane, and McChrystal were all “retired early because they told Obama things he didn’t want to hear?” That we can “carpet-bomb where ISIS troops are, not a city?” That Obama hasn’t asked Silicon Valley for cooperation — and that Silicon Valley would be more apt to give it to Carly Fiorina? That the Kurds (which ones?) would or should go into Raqaa? That King Hussein is still alive? That the Saudis “have agreed to put together a coalition inside of Syria?” That Iraq can invite Russia to fly in Syrian airspace? That we have not been conducting military exercises in the Baltic states? That familiarity with the phrase, “the triad” is an esoteric foreign policy detail? That murdering people related to terrorists would be morally acceptable or strategically advantageous? That we can shut “our” Internet down without, at the minimum, doing thisBrentB67 explains far better than I could why the term “no-fly zone” is not a magic elixir.

I could go on. But it’s too depressing. I assume that half the candidates on that stage know these facts. Anyone who’s been minimally briefed on national security would. But they figure it’s okay to say pretty much anything to be elected. I assume the other half don’t know them, but see this as no obstacle to being a successful Commander-in-Chief.

I wish I hadn’t watched it.

Published in Foreign Policy, General, Islamist Terrorism, Military, Politics
Like this post? Want to comment? Join Ricochet’s community of conservatives and be part of the conversation. Join Ricochet for Free.

There are 27 comments.

Become a member to join the conversation. Or sign in if you're already a member.
  1. Scott Wilmot Member
    Scott Wilmot
    @ScottWilmot

    Claire Berlinski, Ed.: But they figure it’s okay to say pretty much anything to be elected.

    It has been this way since I started to vote 40 years ago. All the lyingmisleading, misrepresenting, being less than candid” just seems to be what we have come to expect and what we have settled for.

    Obama’s quote above shows mastery at the game.

    • #1
  2. Claire Berlinski, Ed. Member
    Claire Berlinski, Ed.
    @Claire

    Scott Wilmot:

    Claire Berlinski, Ed.: But they figure it’s okay to say pretty much anything to be elected.

    It has been this way since I started to vote 40 years ago. All the lyingmisleading, misrepresenting, being less than candid” just seems to be what we have come to expect and what we have settled for.

    Some observers would say it’s been this way since well before:

    Consider, for example, a campaign for the Presidency. Would it be possible to imagine anything more uproariously idiotic – a deafening, nerve-wracking battle to the death between Tweedledum and Tweedledee, Harlequin and Sganarelle, Gobbo and Dr. Cook – the unspeakable, with fearful snorts, gradually swallowing the inconceivable? I defy any one to match it elsewhere on this earth. In other lands, at worst, there are at least intelligible issues, coherent ideas, salient personalities. Somebody says something, and somebody replies. But what did Harding say in 1920, and what did Cox reply? Who was Harding, anyhow, and who was Cox? Here, having perfected democracy, we lift the whole combat to symbolism, to transcendentalism, to metaphysics. Here we load a pair of palpably tin cannon with blank cartridges charged with talcum power, and so let fly. Here one may howl over the show without any uneasy reminder that it is serious, and that some one may be hurt. I hold that this elevation of politics to the plane of undiluted comedy is peculiarly American, that no-where else on this disreputable ball has the art of the sham-battle been developed to such fineness…

    … Here politics is purged of all menace, all sinister quality, all genuine significance, and stuffed with such gorgeous humors, such inordinate farce that one comes to the end of a campaign with one’s ribs loose, and ready for “King Lear,” or a hanging, or a course of medical journals.

    But for some reason, this debate broke my heart. Two plus two can’t be made to equal five.

    • #2
  3. Scott Wilmot Member
    Scott Wilmot
    @ScottWilmot

    Claire Berlinski, Ed.: But for some reason, this debate broke my heart. Two plus two can’t be made to equal five.

    It probably has been this way forever, but it breaks my heart, too. Once we got our two cups of coffee in us this morning, my wife and I have been ranting over this article by Michelle Malkin. I consider myself fairly well informed but I had no idea the incompetence ran so deep. I guess politicians think we are all stupid so they just rely on the sound bite to get elected. Trump is showing us how the game is played.

    • #3
  4. Kermit Hoffpauir Inactive
    Kermit Hoffpauir
    @KermitHoffpauir

    I’m glad that I was where I didn’t have access to CNN.

    I’m also glad that I haven’t watched any debate thus far, because I would have been screaming at the TV set, a lot.

    • #4
  5. Ball Diamond Ball Member
    Ball Diamond Ball
    @BallDiamondBall

    The days of Oldsmobile politics are over.  Politics has become ubiquitous, and the two types of Americans are those who understand this and those who do not.

    You don’t get to decide whether or not you will engage in Alinskyism, the manufacture of consent, or ugly smears.  Lines once crossed leave only the choice of whether to live by these swords or die by them.  They are here and they are not going away.

    Fussiness is a privilege that we have lost.  Spend your time as you see fit, live well, take care of those you love, try to leave something for those who follow, and settle in for a long unpleasant slog. We have refused to take care of business when we could have won, and now it will be “a very close-run thing”.

    • #5
  6. billy Inactive
    billy
    @billy

    This is the way it has always been, In 1916, Wilson won re-election, in part, by pledging to keep America out of European wars.

    In the first two years of his second term, 100,000 Americans were killed in Europe.

    There’s a phrase, “No battle plan survives the first contact with the enemy.” Well there should be a corollary, “No campaign foreign policy rhetoric survives the first foreign policy crisis.”

    • #6
  7. billy Inactive
    billy
    @billy

    As always, we should turn to the wisdom of South Park:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UthMHjoNyjA

    https://youtu.be/UthMHjoNyjA

    • #7
  8. Spin Inactive
    Spin
    @Spin

    Aren’t we just getting what we are asking for though, really?  We the people don’t want someone who understands any of this.  We want someone who can stand up there and just say stuff that sounds good.

    • #8
  9. Susan the Buju Contributor
    Susan the Buju
    @SusanQuinn

    It took five debates to finally say this, but it’s impossible to make good choices based on what the debaters say. My eyes glazed over at the back and forth between Rubio and Cruz. The smirking by Trump is pathetic. I doubt I’ll watch another debate. It simply isn’t a smart way to collect information. And I grow to resent all of them. It goes back to the question: how do we receive valid information about them to make wise choices?

    • #9
  10. Marion Evans Inactive
    Marion Evans
    @MarionEvans

    Susan the Buju:It took five debates to finally say this, but it’s impossible to make good choices based on what the debaters say. My eyes glazed over at the back and forth between Rubio and Cruz. The smirking by Trump is pathetic. I doubt I’ll watch another debate. It simply isn’t a smart way to collect information. And I grow to resent all of them. It goes back to the question: how do we receive valid information about them to make wise choices?

    When we suddenly realize that we don’t have a good candidate. Seriously, they are all bad. Maybe one of them will be constructed into someone remotely acceptable by Nov 2016.

    • #10
  11. EJHill Podcaster
    EJHill
    @EJHill

    When history fills out America’s death certificate the cause of death will be listed as “television.”

    • #11
  12. James Gawron Inactive
    James Gawron
    @JamesGawron

    Claire,

    Usually, there are two reasons you ask questions. First, that you are seriously interested in the knowledge that will come from the response. Second, to trap and embarrass those being questioned. If there is an adequate supply of respondents you can have a third reason. Instigating an argument between two or more of the respondents not to clarify the issue but to further confuse anyone actually listening.

    Wolf Blitzer and Dana Bash were consciously involved in reason two and three from the moment the debate began and all the way through. Hugh Hewitt, a man one would think might balance this actually added to the fray.

    There should have been 5 people on the stage not 9. Someone with a real sense of conservative counter force should have been the third questioner. The candidates were too geared up to attack each other and again forgot that Obama & Clinton are who you should be directing your fire. They also forgot that CNN getting out of line can ruin the effect of the entire debate and ruin the Republican brand. Ted Cruz should have settled Wolf down and Carly should have bashed Dana Bash. As a conservative balance Hugh was worthless.

    Regards,

    Jim

    • #12
  13. The Reticulator Member
    The Reticulator
    @TheReticulator

    Kermit Hoffpauir:I’m glad that I was where I didn’t have access to CNN.

    I’m also glad that I haven’t watched any debate thus far, because I would have been screaming at the TV set, a lot.

    This is in part why I don’t watch politics on television, or anything else for that matter other than to help Mrs. Reticulator watch Big Ten basketball and football.  If I were allowed to break into the television screen and grab people by the collar and yell at them to get to the point, it might be different. But when they do get to the point, it’s usually a bad point, so then I need to grab them and bang a few heads together. But I’m not allowed to do that.

    Watching television is dirty, dangerous work, but somebody has to do it.  I’m glad that someone doesn’t have to be me.  I do appreciate that Claire has done some of it for us.

    • #13
  14. EJHill Podcaster
    EJHill
    @EJHill

    Television is a great conveyor of emotion, not of substance. It is passive and relentless. Although DVRs have changed the equation a bit, you don’t normally rewind television the way you might re-read a passage in a book or news paper.

    Plus the debate format is simply absurd. “Senator, the Middle East is embroiled in a thousand year quagmire. Explain your solution in 75 seconds…”

    • #14
  15. MarciN Member
    MarciN
    @MarciN

    As everybody on Ricochet knows by now, I respect Bush 41’s and 43’s and Mitt Romney’s serious views on foreign policy. Very seldom did any of them get the facts wrong, at least as I knew the facts. But my fellow Republicans have completely rejected all three. For the current candidates to please the Republican Party would be tough.

    I also think that no one can survive these debates-by-sound bites. Cruz particularly–and he’s lost me completely and forever now on foreign policy, so I’m not saying this to support him–is far more able to construct a respectable position than he was able to in the debate format he was functioning in.

    So in all fairness to the candidates, the debate format itself was treacherous.

    Still, one would hope some thoughtful writing and speeches would have followed if the candidates were truly frustrated.

    When President Bush ran against Gore, he gave this speech at the Reagan Library. Because of it, I became an ardent supporter of his candidacy and presidency. He is down to earth, practical, but idealistic all at the same time. A perfect leader, for me. Clearly not for others. But this was a great campaign speech on foreign policy as far as I’m concerned.

    • #15
  16. Autistic License Coolidge
    Autistic License
    @AutisticLicense

    I will take the reference to buncombe as a permission to quote the Master.

    .  Every election is a sort of advance auction sale of stolen goods.

    .  Each party steals so many articles of faith from the other, and the candidates spend so much time making each other’s speeches, that by the time election day is past there is nothing much to do save turn the sitting rascals out and let a new gang in.

    .  A national political campaign is better than the best circus ever heard of, with a mass baptism and a couple of hangings thrown in.

    .  If a politician found he had cannibals among his constituents, he would promise them missionaries for dinner.

    • #16
  17. James Gawron Inactive
    James Gawron
    @JamesGawron

    EJHill:Television is a great conveyor of emotion, not of substance. It is passive and relentless. Although DVRs have changed the equation a bit, you don’t normally rewind television the way you might re-read a passage in a book or news paper.

    Plus the debate format is simply absurd. “Senator, the Middle East is embroiled in a thousand year quagmire. Explain your solution in 75 seconds…”

    EJ,

    Kasich, Paul, & Jeb should not have been on stage. So down to six each would have had more time. Still this doesn’t get to what I’m talking about.

    “Senator X, explain what you meant by carpet bombing in 25 seconds..follow on question attacking his position…5 second response…talking over response with another attacking follow on question…times up bell..now I want Senator Y (who is guaranteed to argue with Senator X) to answer the question. Quick heated exchange between X and Y…bell..Now I want to ask Senator Z another question (totally unrelated to the first question but embarrassing to Senator Z)

    Keep this rapid-fire nonsense up for 2 hours. If all the candidates are concentrating on slamming their opponent they won’t bother to break up this gimmick. For every point they are scoring against their presumed target they are losing three points because the effect of the entire debate is negative. If the media is out to destroy the Republican brand this is how they do it.

    Foreign policy…Reset with the Russians, Arab Spring, Libya, Egypt, Syria, Iran, China, Ukraine. How much time was spent knocking the administration and how much time was spent knocking each other.

    Hopefully, this debate will quickly recede in the public consciousness.

    Regards,

    Jim

    • #17
  18. Claire Berlinski, Ed. Member
    Claire Berlinski, Ed.
    @Claire

    MarciN: A perfect leader, for me. Clearly not for others. But this was a great campaign speech on foreign policy as far as I’m concerned.

    It is.

    How much things have changed.

    • #18
  19. MarciN Member
    MarciN
    @MarciN

    This is an excerpt (it takes two comments) from Romney’s foreign policy campaign speech four years ago:

    Around the world we see tremendous upheaval and change. Our next President will face extraordinary challenges that could alter the destiny of America and, indeed, the future of freedom.

    Today, I want you to join me in looking forward. Forward beyond that next Recognition Day, beyond Ring Weekend to four years from today, October 7th, 2015.

    What kind of world will we be facing?

    Will Iran be a fully activated nuclear weapons state, threatening its neighbors, dominating the world’s oil supply with a stranglehold on the Strait of Hormuz?  In the hands of the ayatollahs, a nuclear Iran is nothing less than an existential threat to Israel. Iran’s suicidal fanatics could blackmail the world.

    By 2015, will Israel be even more isolated by a hostile international community? Will those who seek Israel’s destruction feel emboldened by American ambivalence? Will Israel have been forced to fight yet another war to protect its citizens and its right to exist?

    In Afghanistan, after the United States and NATO have withdrawn all forces, will the Taliban find a path back to power? After over a decade of American sacrifice in treasure and blood, will the country sink back into the medieval terrors of fundamentalist rule and the mullahs again open a sanctuary for terrorists?

    [continued]

    • #19
  20. MarciN Member
    MarciN
    @MarciN

    [Romney’s speech, continued from note 19]

    Next door, Pakistan awaits the uncertain future, armed with more than 100 nuclear weapons. The danger of a failed Pakistan is difficult to overestimate, fraught with nightmare scenarios: Will a nuclear weapon be in the hands of Islamic Jihadists?

    China has made it clear that it intends to be a military and economic superpower. Will her rulers lead their people to a new era of freedom and prosperity or will they go down a darker path, intimidating their neighbors, brushing aside an inferior American Navy in the Pacific, and building a global alliance of authoritarian states?

    Russia is at a historic crossroads.  Vladimir Putin has called the breakup of the Soviet empire the great tragedy of the 20th Century. Will he try to reverse that tragedy and bludgeon the countries of the former Soviet Union into submission, and intimidate Europe with the levers of its energy resources?

    • #20
  21. MarciN Member
    MarciN
    @MarciN

    Re comments 19 and 20: I have to agree with the Wall Street Journal that Romney’s speech was less than ideal. It was certainly not as good as Mitt Romney’s other speeches I have heard or read on foreign policy. He should not have included the 2015 prediction in this important speech. There was nowhere to go after having made the point. :) It was a dumb rhetorical move on his part. :) And I’m sure his worries were far more serious than they sound in the prediction he articulated in his campaign speech, given the remarks he made in his first debate with President Obama.

    • #21
  22. I Walton Member
    I Walton
    @IWalton

    We begin with the assumption that the things we expect governments in general and a President in particular to do, can actually be done.  The assumptions are almost always wrong.  Most conservatives understand that what governments try to do domestically, can’t be done, and that the attempt to do them will most likely enrich some on purpose, harm some greatly and make the majority marginally worse off.  And domestic policy takes place here where we speak the language, know the culture, have interests that lead us to pay attention and have abundant  detailed inside information on the process, and authority and momentum on our side.   Abroad we have none of that, yet we want our conservatives to support the kind of  action we’d know as counter productive if applied at home.  Indeed we want them to speak boldly and with nuance about what they will do abroad and if they advise caution we call them isolationists.  And yet I agree there are times we must carpet bomb or the equivalent, but that is very different from nation building, fostering democracy, winning hearts and minds, transforming cultures, or leading from behind.    So belligerent talk doesn’t bother me so much as talk along the last phrase above.   I don’t want to hear specifics, just basic approach that makes sense, and I want to know who means what they say and understands the implications and risks of acting and of not acting.

    • #22
  23. Concretevol Thatcher
    Concretevol
    @Concretevol

    Ball Diamond Ball: We have refused to take care of business when we could have won, and now it will be “a very close-run thing”.

    “If you will not fight for right when you can easily win without blood shed;
    if you will not fight when your victory is sure and not too costly; you may
    come to the moment when you will have to fight with all the odds against you and only a precarious chance of survival. There may even be a worse case. You may have to fight when there is no hope of victory, because it is better to perish than to live as slaves.”

    Winston S. Churchill

    • #23
  24. Ball Diamond Ball Member
    Ball Diamond Ball
    @BallDiamondBall

    Susan the Buju:It took five debates to finally say this, but it’s impossible to make good choices based on what the debaters say. My eyes glazed over at the back and forth between Rubio and Cruz. The smirking by Trump is pathetic. I doubt I’ll watch another debate. It simply isn’t a smart way to collect information. And I grow to resent all of them. It goes back to the question: how do we receive valid information about them to make wise choices?

    Depends what you want.  Sounds like you are well on the way to choosing a different goal than simply winning and trusting electoral victory to translate into something good for the country.

    We have two parties bickering about the best way to urinate on the base of a pyramid, and nobody wants to actually climb the thing.  Endless possibilities vs interminable nonsense.

    • #24
  25. Susan the Buju Contributor
    Susan the Buju
    @SusanQuinn

    Ball Diamond Ball: Sounds like you are well on the way to choosing a different goal than simply winning and trusting electoral victory to translate into something good for the country.

    You’re right. I think that the last two elections were about simply winning and trusting electoral victory to translate into something good for the country. And I don’t see endless possibilities as an improvement over interminable nonsense either.

    • #25
  26. Ball Diamond Ball Member
    Ball Diamond Ball
    @BallDiamondBall

    Susan the Buju:

    Ball Diamond Ball: Sounds like you are well on the way to choosing a different goal than simply winning and trusting electoral victory to translate into something good for the country.

    You’re right. I think that the last two elections were about simply winning and trusting electoral victory to translate into something good for the country. And I don’t see endless possibilities as an improvement over interminable nonsense either.

    Some concrete (dare I say quarried?) achievements would be nice.

    • #26
  27. Concretevol Thatcher
    Concretevol
    @Concretevol

    Ball Diamond Ball: Some concrete

    someone say concrete???

    • #27
Become a member to join the conversation. Or sign in if you're already a member.