Questions

Siftung Leo Strauss has a question:

As a random thought experiment, which of you, Dear Readers, could offer a coherent paragraph summation about the foreign policy (note, not just Iraq) vision of the oh, top three candidates of either party? Without cheating and clipping and pasting some crap a 24 year old intern posted on the web page from a think tanker angling to be the new Dep.Asst.Sec. of something. We mean, in real time, an off the top of your head kind of thing.

Just as he suggests, one can't really do it. "Just bits and pieces of AgitProp and gibberish. Maybe you, Dear Reader, might have more luck." One thing it's worth pointing out is that there's nothing unusual about this. Presidential candidates tend to be vague and somewhat contradictory in describing their thinking about foreign policy. The true significance of what they were saying on the campaign trail is usually only clear in retrospect. Looking backwards, one can see Bush laying the groundwork for his post-9/11 nationalist binge back in the campaign talk of 2000 but very few people saw it at the time.

Comments

"Looking backwards, one can see Bush laying the groundwork for his post-9/11 nationalist binge back in the campaign talk of 2000 but very few people saw it at the time."

Is that true? As I recall, during campaign 2000 Bush emphasized humility as a key element of U.S. foreign policy, and explicitly rejected the idea that U.S. troops should engage in "nation-building".

Posted by peep | June 28, 2007 9:46 AM

One could almost apply Strauss's assertion about the candidates' positions on foreign policy to their positions on health care or global warming (although, on those topics, all three include a bit of hard fact in addition to quite a lot of agitprop and gibberish.)

At present, the political situation in America is such that it's simply poisonous to propose any deviation from the status quo.

Posted by James Gary | June 28, 2007 10:00 AM

...one can see Bush laying the groundwork for his post-9/11 nationalist binge back in the campaign talk of 2000 but very few people saw it at the time.

I had the exact same reaction as peep. I always had the impression that 9/11 ("it changed everything man") caused Bush to make a hard-left in many respects...well, at least in foreign policy. I'd be interested to see MY come up with some examples.

Posted by mitch | June 28, 2007 11:25 AM

A pedantic note: It's Stiftung, not Siftung. It's German for foundation. I corrected Jim Henley on the same thing.

Posted by Clark | June 28, 2007 11:35 AM

Nathan Millman at The American Scene puts forth a set of plausible predictions for the foreign policies of the leading presidential candidates

Posted by Marc Stone | June 28, 2007 12:32 PM

Double Gitmo!

No... tripple! Tripple Gitmo!

Posted by Mac | June 28, 2007 12:42 PM

That's Noah Millman, actually.

Posted by Noah Millman | June 28, 2007 12:53 PM

It is my impression that, during the campaign, many candidates speak in such mish-mosh that, looking back, one can cut-and-paste random sentences from their speeches to show foreshadowing for virtually anything they do, particularly in foreign policy. Had GWB had an enlightenment experience and decided to destroy all our nuclear arms, surely somewhere in his 2000 campaign, he said something that someone could claim laid the groundwork for it.

Posted by Roberta Taussig | June 28, 2007 1:26 PM

Perhaps the candidates just feel that what they will do once in government is none of your damn business, since that is decided in closed-door meetings with their corporate sponsors.

The public's place in all this is to choose the style of the national leadership, and nothing more.

Posted by RLaing | June 28, 2007 1:34 PM

Moral leadership as the cornerstone of all engagement in foreign policy. Dialogue as the pre emptive measure to persuasion. Touring round the world to re establish faith in America. Leading in terms of showing what can be done. Knowing what can be done. Active pursuit of options, non military, with nations in and around hostile regimes/powers. Creative solutions such as the new energy alternative proposal to pushing an Iraq/Iran solution. Taking no options off the table.

That summarises JRE. Different from Obama in lines 3,4,6 and maybe 5. Different from HRC in terms of actually being a policy.

Posted by kc | June 28, 2007 2:09 PM