Tonight, before watching the Republican presidential debate on foreign policy, I fully expected to see maybe half of the candidates somehow crash and burn, or at least say something distinctly bad. That didn't happen. Actually, to my pleasant surprise, the debate was very intelligent and reasonable. Candidates were often wrong, of course, but at least they were intelligently wrong.
My focus here has nothing to do with tactics or political advantage; I know next to nothing on the subject. My area of study is international relations, and that's what I'm judging: whose suggestions are the best, and whose ideas are the most reasonable; basically, who would actually make the best president. I generally don't offer analysis of debates, since this year they've been largely focused on domestic affairs; so, lacking a framework, I will conveniently steal Ben Kantack's framework of candidate rankings, beginning with...
8. Herman Cain
For the first time since I started paying attention to the primary race, Herman Cain spent an hour and a half in a debate without even once mentioning his 9-9-9 tax reform plan. While he made no substantial mistakes, he also made no substantial contributions. He said he does not agree with torture, but does agree with enhanced interrogation techniques, a rather vague distinction. He also placed himself firmly against the Arab Spring, a stance which I personally find very hard to justify.
7. Rick Perry
Perry's suggestion that we reevaluate our foreign aid, starting at $0 for each country and then letting countries make their case on why they should get our money, is an interesting if perhaps impractical idea. However, with the majority of the other questions, Perry essentially avoided several of the questions he was asked and, as far as I could tell, did not make much of a ripple.
6. Ron Paul
While Ron Paul tends to bring up very good points of discussion, his only opinion on foreign policy appears to be: Don't. When asked what to do about Iran, he limited his answer to ruling out military intervention, but he offered no alternatives. His point on the illegality and immorality of torture was important; his warning about the dangers of allowing the targeted assassinations of US citizens involved in terrorist organizations seemed kind of extreme.
5. Michelle Bachmann
The greatest miracle of tonight's debate is that Bachmann actually sounded really intelligent. Her answer on why we absolutely have to maintain our foreign aid to Pakistan (because they have nuclear weapons and a potentially unstable government) was excellent. So was her willingness to cut defense spending by spending smarter. Her other answers left something to be desired, though, and her support of the borderline torture technique of waterboarding is indefensible.
At this point, my rankings become somewhat arbitrary. It's a lot easier to pick the losers than it is the winners. Also, it's past midnight and I'm quite tired, so my analysis may also become a bit arbitrary here.
4. Mitt Romney
Romney delivered a solid policy on Iran, promising to use all means necessary, including the military in a worst-case scenario, to prevent their acquisition of nuclear weapons. He also presented a strong stance on China, arguing that a trade war already exists and that we need to do something about it. On the other hand, he suggested that Pakistan was comfortable with our use of drones within their territory, then quickly hedged and said that we had the approval of the people we needed it from. While he displayed foreign policy competence, it seemed to me that he spent as much time sounding presidential as he did actually proposing solutions. (I should note here, although it applies to all candidates, that I am not taking into account any comments on domestic policy in this analysis, for instance, responses on how to reduce the deficit. I'm just here to talk about foreign policy.)
3. Newt Gingrich
Since I'm tired, I can be totally honest: I got the distinct impression that Gingrich knew what he was talking about and said a lot of good stuff, but I honestly cannot remember what that good stuff was. So, my apologies. Maybe I'll redo this one when I'm more awake.
2. Rick Santorum
Santorum's best answers were to two questions about Pakistan. First, he said that we absolutely must be Pakistan's ally, because, essentially, the alternative is having a nuclear-armed radicalizing Muslim enemy. Second, he said that, in the case of the disappearance of a nuclear weapon in Pakistan, our solution would have to involve close cooperation with the Pakistani government. His other statements, while less stellar, were nonetheless overall good foreign policy.
And the winner is, based purely on substance and not at all on style...
1. Jon Huntsman
Huntsman didn't get the chance to open his mouth very often during this debate, but when he did, what he said was worth listening to. He cited waterboarding as a great way to diminish America's international image. He argued that we have achieved our mission in Afghanistan and need to focus our attention elsewhere. (That all depends on your definition of our mission in Afghanistan, I guess.) He argued for a positive policy of engaging China's younger generation to overcome our trade problems and avoid an overt trade war that could damage our already weak economy. He offered a solid answer on how to deal with a missing nuclear weapon in Pakistan. It's a shame that Huntsman is not a more assertive candidate and that he doesn't get much attention. One-on-one, I suspect he could tear apart most, if not all, of the other candidates on foreign policy issues. If only he'd prove himself willing to do so.
So, there you have it, my take on the debate. The order I've placed the candidates in doesn't necessarily reflect who actually won the debate (if you define winning as getting closer to winning the nomination); it's purely an analysis of the strength of their foreign policy stances.
That said, I'll make one last statement while I'm on the subject. I suspect that Perry, Bachmann, Cain, and probably even Huntsman are nearing the end of the road. Perry and Bachmann have already boomed and busted; despite his high poll numbers, I suspect Cain is also about to bust. Huntsman, despite his foreign policy strengths, can't seem to get off the ground. Paul has tenacity, but he's essentially a fringe candidate. The real contest, as far as I can tell, is between Romney, Gingrich, and Santorum. Like it or not, one of them will probably be the Republican presidential candidate. Which it will be, and how it will be determined, I have not the slightest idea.
No comments:
Post a Comment