The Big 5 and the Sad State of Foreign Policy in 2016

[MBS]

https://foreignpolicy.com/2016/02/02/the-big-5-and-the-sad-state-of-foreign-policy-in-2016-sanders-clinton-trump-cruz-rubio/?

Hillary Clinton
Let’s take the easiest one first. Hillary Clinton’s views on foreign policy may wobble on occasion (as with her opportunistic skepticism about the Trans-Pacific Partnership), but she’s a known quantity at this point. Maybe too well known. . . Her foreign-policy team is filled with knowledgeable, experienced, and reliably mainstream foreign-policy professionals. Both she and her team are the last people you’d expect to move outside the box when it comes to foreign policy, and that fact alone is likely to reassure foreign governments alarmed by the rest of this year’s field. . . A Clinton foreign policy will look a lot like Barack Obama’s, but with a decidedly more hawkish edge. . .
Donald Trump. . . .The real worry is that we have no idea what Trump’s foreign policy would be. We don’t know whom he listens to on the subject (maybe no one), what books he’s read, or whether he understands how modern diplomacy or real war is conducted. No doubt plenty of foreign-policy careerists will flock to his banner should he win the nomination, hoping to land a plum job in Washington, but we have no clue about whom he would appoint. He has said he’ll pick some “really great people,” but on what basis is he going to choose them? And contrary to Trumpian rhetoric, the president isn’t going to negotiate every single international deal himself. A Trump presidency would be a leap in the dark, and I have no desire to participate in a social science experiment on such a vast scale. Italy tried something similar — first with Mussolini and later with Berlusconi — and the results were not pretty.
Ted Cruz.What can one say about a candidate who is loathed by his own party and by colleagues on both sides of the Senate aisle? Only that a Ted Cruz presidency would probably make George W. Bush-style “unilateralism” seem like a Quaker meeting. As Winston Churchill once said of John Foster Dulles, Cruz could so similarly be described as a “bull who carries his own china [shop] with him.” If it bothers you that the current U.S. president is now the most popular leader in the world, don’t worry: Cruz would almost certainly fix that problem. The mystery is why someone so filled with un-Christian bile does so well with evangelicals. . . .
Bernie Sanders. (can't include text here without going over the 4- paragraph maximum- please see article for details)
Marco Rubio.For those of you who think invading Iraq was a terrific idea and that all it takes to run the world is a little more moxie and a few ringing slogans, here is your candidate. Marco Rubio’s political career has been bankrolled by backers with solid neoconservative beliefs (such as Paul Singer, Norman Braman, and Sheldon Adelson), and he’s reportedly getting advice from the same Project for the New American Century–types who led the United States to disaster under George W. Bush. . . I suspect neoconservatives have cottoned onto Rubio for the same reason they liked George W. Bush and Sarah Palin: He’s an uninformed naif they think they can manipulate and convert to their extreme worldview. Jeb Bush has a few of his brother’s old neoconservative advisors lined up with him, but his campaign is going nowhere, and Rubio is the only candidate who seems to have fully embraced the discredited PNAC worldview. He thinks America is getting terribly, terribly weak (even though we still have the world’s largest economy and spend more on defense than the next dozen countries combined), and he promises to end sequestration and rebuild “American strength.” But he also wants to cut taxes and “rein in Washington spending.” In other words, he’s offering up the same contradictory voodoo that has been a staple of Republican campaigns since Ronald Reagan. . . In short, a Rubio presidency would confirm that the United States has learned precisely nothing from its tragic experiment with neoconservatism. If that’s where we end up this November, we’ll deserve whatever punishment history decides to dish out.

[karynnj]

1. This is pretty depressing and nicely done

Last edited Wed Feb 3, 2016, 03:39 PM - Edit history (2)

For someone who is impressed with the foreign policy of President Obama, 4 of the alternatives are rather depressing - including his former Secretary of State. The recent moves - especially Iran - against the neo liberal/neo con agenda will likely switch back to that agenda, which independent of party, has been the norm.

It is interesting that they speak of Sanders not really having a foreign policy. Yet, he was mocked bysome when he spoke on foreign policy - against the US supporting right wing thugs in Central America - as a mayor of Burlington VT. What I wonder when people say foreign policy is not his issue is whether it is because he doesn't pander to the foreign policy establishment's many thing tanks. That most of the best known ones, mostly having strong neo liberal or neocon tendencies, have propagated the ideas that led to the mess we are in suggests that maybe someone needs to call out that for some of these "emperor's" they are lacking clothes.

Here I suggest that - as could have been asked of 1992 Bill Clinton and could be asked of Sanders - Sanders could be asked to state at a high level what his view of how the United States should use its power in the world. Consider what Jimmy Carter's answers would have been. In addition, although asking someone not yet President who they would pick for the national security positions in the WH and cabinet, asking him to describe the type of people he would want and how he would want them to work and how he would interact with them could make people more comfortable with him on foreign policy.

In fact, it is BECAUSE of foreign policy - more than domestic policy - that I prefer Sanders. I place more value on whether I agree on foreign policy vision, values, intelligence, and an assessment of integrity rather than experience or even knowledge of facts. This easily tipped me to be for Obama in 2008. Whoever is President will have a team of people working on every issue. No one, no matter how experienced, will personally be an expert on everything. Not to mention, even experts find that brain storming with other experts leads is very productive.

So knowing HRC is more hawkish than Obama, I am far closer to Sanders. Not to mention, a case can be made that Sanders with his aversion to regime change is closer to my views and closer to where Obama is now. HRC went to great lengths to define herself as she did. So - on agrees with my views, it is Bernie. On values and integrity, I pick Bernie. As to intelligence - both are very intelligent. Another reason I prefer Bernie is because of many stories I have heard from friends here in Burlington relating to working with Bernie as Mayor. Now, running a relatively small city is far from being President - some things that seem to be consistent over many completely unrelated stories are: he listens, he looks for creative solutions when obvious paths don't work, he brings in people from outside the system if it helps, and when he promises something - he did it.

I have heard of HRC's tight coterie that created cocoons around her in her Senate career, her 2008 campaign, her time as SoS, and this campaign. Without doubting her intelligence, my own background pushes me to trust that Bernie would be someone - like Obama -- who will make decisions based on the combined information of many people, that are consistent with his values.

[MBS]

2. "depressing and nicely done" - I agree.n/t