|
| quote: | Originally posted by Lebezniatnikov
If they start talking about Realist and Liberal theories of international politics, they're going to lose their target audience. Look, I want some real discussion of broad foreign policy agendas as well - that's why I supported Biden until he dropped out - but the fact is, that will go over the average voter's head. The average voter wants to know the physical steps we can take to improve national security, and little more.
|
But this is part of the problem. Sure the debates may not be as technical as they could / should be, but the average person is actually smarter then you'd assume. Most people have fairly well developed theories about philosophy, politics, and economics but usually lack the comunications skills to express them. When presneted with an argument about such things, so long as it doesn't ramble, most people can feild a decent opinion backed by reasons for thier choice.
Pandering is simply a way of avoiding actual public opininon about things that matter. Wouldn't it be horrible for the political establishment to open up real policy discussion only to find that the majority of people prefer leaving Iran as a smouldering crater? What does a politician do then? All of a sudden the person who is supposed to enact the will of the people has to do something they don't want.
IMO that's the point at which a politician should resign. If you can't do a reasonable job of expressing the majority opinion and acting upon it you shouldn't be even running for office. If the majority opinion is despicable, xenophobic, inhumane, and predatory then that is the majority opinion and the people will have to deal with the consequences, not just thier leaders.
| quote: | Originally posted by Lebezniatnikov
And anyhow, a debate on foreign policy strategies HAS been addressed - but not in debates, where they try to appeal to the lowest common denominator in order to win the greatest number of voters. I suggest you check out Foreign Affairs - they've published foreign policy essays written by all of the leading candidates - that's where you'll find a more comprehensive summary of each candidate's views on the "political science" stuff that you're looking for.
|
I'm a huge fan of FA. It's one of those magazines that offers some amount of silver lining to a rather stormy society.
I've been following the candidates essays closely and I'm ready to look over the essays of who ever wins to see what's ahead. Hukabee and Guliani have had the absolute worst essays of all of them.
Guliani is full of aggression and tough New York talk. It might work well for a city where the population numbers in the millions, but a world who's population is 1000 times as big is completely different. It seems rather clear that Guiliani has spent a lot of time becoming king of his castle at the expense of not knowing much outside of it. I'm thinking of a character like Cousin Avi in "Snatch", someone who's tough, smart, and to the point but doesn't actually want to deal with learning how another city works.
Hukabee is down right scary. He opens his essay a mistake in each of his opening lines.
"The United States, as the world's only superpower, is less vulnerable to military defeat. But it is more vulnerable to the animosity of other countries."
less vulnerable to millitary defeat then what? More vulnerable then what?
I think the implication is "other countries" but it's still a rather horid opening line.
It's also clear that Hukabee has at least two writers working on the essay. It jumps dramatically between styles of flow and vocabulary on a paragraph by paragraph basis.
A final note is that he ommits mentioning China, India, South America, and Africa. That's 13 pages of foreign policy speak by a potential US presidential candidate that leaves those "minor" points out of his writing.
A final note, I haven't seen an essay by Paul in Foreign Affairs.
|
