Questions

I keep meaning to write this post, and then keep not doing it. But the point is to whine that the primary candidates aren't dealing with the questions that I want answers to. In particular, they talk a lot about Iraq, and to some extent about Darfur, but very little about slightly more abstract foreign policy issues. Some things I'm curious about (with parentheticals to note partial exceptions) that I haven't seen the contenders deal with:

• Do you think it might help US non-proliferation policy if the US did a better job of living up to its NPT obligations (Obama mentioned this once, in the affirmative, briefly, in a speech)?
• Should unilateral preventive military force play a role in our non-proliferation policy question?
• Is turning Arab countries into democracies necessary (or sufficient) to reducing terrorism? Is it counterproductive?
• Is it more important to check Chinese influence or to maintain friendly relations with China?
• Has the Bush administration been too focused on the Greater Middle East at the expense of other regions?
• Is US defense spending too low, too high, or about right?
• Should we rethink our relationship with our Arab client regimes?

I agree with Mark Schmitt that "detailed plans" can be overrated, but at the same time I envy the ability of domestic policy pressure groups to make the candidates try to address their concerns.

Comments

Four hours and 25 minutes, and counting. please, Matt, surely one of Marty's mimions has had something important to say this morning?

or are you waiting for the mid-afternoon rush? please don't keep us hanging, the anticpation is becoming overwhelming.

Posted by mrs. ibrahim al-jafaari | July 25, 2007 11:58 AM

I would worry that if the candidates tried to answer these questions, they would do so with bromides to avoid offending anyone, thinking that the upside of speaking frankly would be minimal. I'd think you'd get more of a measure of them by looking at where their senior advisors are on these issues. And that's the sort of thing that a foreign-policy journalist/cogniscentum can do, but I'm not going to.

Posted by Tyrone Slothrop | July 25, 2007 11:59 AM

You should have asked these questions in a YouTube video! Possibly with hoodie.

Posted by Neil the Ethical Werewolf | July 25, 2007 12:04 PM

the primary candidates aren't dealing with the questions that I want answers to.

If only you knew a professional journalist.

Posted by SomeCallMeTim | July 25, 2007 12:06 PM

If only you knew a professional journalist.

Sadly, the "call their staff and ask them questions they don't want to answer" tactic doesn't work very well. It turns out that high-level political candidates are very good about addressing the issues they want to address, and not the other ones.

YouTube might have worked.

Posted by Matthew Yglesias | July 25, 2007 12:09 PM

What does it really matter? George Bush ran on a platform that was opposed to nation building and humanitarian interventions. Then look how he governed. Whatever the candidates say now will be thrown away come Jan 20, 2009. You have to look at their track record and extrapolate how they would govern based on that. For instance you can safely assume President Hillary's foreign policy will not be grossly different from Bush's. Of course who the next President hires to be Sec Def, Sec State, etc. will matter a whole lot too which is pretty much impossible to know until a few months after the election.

Posted by Ron | July 25, 2007 12:20 PM

Ron,
I disagree concerning Bush governing in opposition to how he said he would. I would submit that, before 09/11/2001, he was "opposed to nation building and humanitarian interventions". Actually, given how he ran the Iraq War, I'd say he still is. But I do think that his foreign policy, and domestic policy, changed radically after that day.

Absolutely agree that the people the President hires matter a whole lot. Heck, that's why I voted for Bush I over Dukakis in 88. I saw the video of Dukakis riding in the tank and thought "The guy who thought that was a good idea could be our next Secretary of State."

Posted by wiredog | July 25, 2007 12:43 PM

I have a few more questions to add to the list:

1. Do you believe that the global demand for resources, particularly energy resources, poses risks to global security? If so, please describe those risks. What can be done about lessening those risks?

2. Many argue that the United Nations system is in need of significant reform. If you agree, what specific UN reforms do you believe are needed?

3. The United States maintains a very large overseas network of military bases, a network that in many cases dates back to the post-WWII and Cold War eras. What are your views about the fundamental purposes and requirements of the US military presence overseas? Are there any specific steps you would take to modify the US global footprint?

4. Do you believe the financial and human burdens of global security provision are shared fairly? Do you believe they should be more fairly shared? Do you believe the United States should seek to preserve, or even expand, its current role in guaranteeing security to various countries around the world, or should the current levels of commitment be scaled back? What will you do to address this issue?

5. Americans conduct business abroad in just about every country in the world, and this activity creates a complex global system of US financial and commercial interests. What do you believe is the proper role of the US government in defending the interests of US nationals conducting business abroad? Are the interests of US nationals and the "national interest" one and the same thing? Do you believe that it is ever appropriate to use force to defend economic interests, absent a threat to lives?

6. Apart from potential reforms to the the primary instruments of global governance that already exist - the UN, the Bretton Woods system, etc. - do you believe there is a need for entirely new institutions for global governance? What specific innovations would you consider promoting? What do you believe the long-term US policy should be in this area, extending even beyond the eight years of your administration?

7. Recent years have seen a leftward drift in Latin American politics, and a succession of new left-leaning Latin American governments in Brazil, Venezuela, Ecuador, Bolivia and Argentina. Do you believe this new wave is a good thing or a bad thing? Do you believe these governments pose a threat to the United States? Do you believe the United States has a legitimate role to play in influencing domestic politics in Latin America?

8. Most Americans above a certain age recall what it was like to grow up in, and live through the Cold War. We can assume that most of them do not want another Cold War. Yet some recent trends are disturbing, with growing diplomatic sniping between Russia and the west, including the recent episode between Russia and the UK. Do you believe the British handled this case properly? What specific steps will you take to prevent tensions among major powers from evolving into a new Cold War-like situation of permanent suspicion and omnipresent military tension among nuclear-armed powers?

9. Does the United States have a "sphere of influence"? Do you accept the legitimacy of such a concept? Do other countries have a sphere of influence? If there are spheres of influence, should it be US policy to respect or challenge the spheres of influence of other countries?

10. Do you believe the United States is an empire? Why or why not? Be specific.

11. There are many cases in which one could argue that some of the religious practices, traditions and systems of religious morality of people in other countries are inconsistent with traditional American conceptions of liberty and human rights. Yet one American tradition is respect for, and noninterference with, the free exercise of one's religion. How would you approach this issue? Do you believe it is ever appropriate for the United States to pursue policies that are in effect designed to change the religious beliefs of people in other countries?

12. Issues about global environmental protection and economic development and resource needs often appear to be connected with population factors. Do you believe that population growth and population management are still significant issues of global concern? What role will the US play in global population policy?

Posted by Dan Kervick | July 25, 2007 12:56 PM

It turns out that high-level political candidates are very good about addressing the issues they want to address, and not the other ones

I have a hard time believing that this is a particularly uncommon problem. As Ron suggests, there's little enough reason to take a candidate's statements on questions he does deign to answer at face value.

Nor does this seem like the type of problem that is limited to politics or reporting. It's usually the case that when we want to answer a question, we lack all of the information we might want to use. So we make our best guess. Just as someone in another field might look for secondary evidence, a reporter might review the writings of the various staff members, and those with home those staff members are affiliated, and offer responsible, intellectually-respectable speculation as to the answers to such questions. If the candidates believe the speculation is wildly off mark, they can, of course, call. And readers would gain much: someone would have done the work towards arriving at an answer so that they don't have to.

Isn't this the kind of thing that reporters and, more generally, analysts do all of the time? Anyway, just a thought.

Posted by SomeCallMeTim | July 25, 2007 1:01 PM

I would worry that if the candidates tried to answer these questions, they would do so with bromides to avoid offending anyone, thinking that the upside of speaking frankly would be minimal.

True. That's why we need to get away from the idiotic debate format everyone seems to be so fond of. The only way to really take the measure of these people on foreign policy would be for them to be subjected individually to a grilling by a panel, with no other candidates in the room. Ideally, it the grilling should last about three hours.

Unfortunately, campaign managers don't like this sort of thing.

Posted by Dan Kervick | July 25, 2007 1:02 PM

Sadly, I seem to be one of the few people online who has actual experience trying to point out flaws in someone's argument and who's willing to do so in a non-nice way. That's very surprising, but based on everything I've seen it's pretty accurate.

The questions MattY poses will simply generate predictable responses. In order to get real answers, you need to a) get tougher, b) ask them about specific things they've said or done that relate to those questions, and c) ask them in a way that they can't be evaded.

Here are some more tips: youtube.com/watch?v=g5JOIAANY3U

Posted by TLB | July 25, 2007 1:19 PM

Heck, that's why I voted for Bush I over Dukakis in 88. I saw the video of Dukakis riding in the tank and thought "The guy who thought that was a good idea could be our next Secretary of State."

And people like you are, in a nutshell, exactly why presidential candidates will never change their formula of running on appearances instead of substance. Nobody in the Dukakis campaign thought it SHOULD be necessary to use their candidate in some militaristic gesture. They were trying (hamfistedly, of course) to accommodate the existing, stupid irrelevant prejudices of the voters. Every American presidential candidate has to "look" "tough" regardless of what it might have to do with the real world and actually being president. So Dukakis' staff picked the wrong image for the "right" reasons (i.e. to win they needed to convince large swaths of irrational voters that their next president wouldn't hesitate to blow shit up with tanks), and people like you, who presumably would know better, voted for Shrub anyway, not presumably because you liked his actual policies better, but because some campaign flunkies failed at a bit of pageantry which ALL SIDES WOULD HAVE AGREED WAS ONLY INTENDED TO SWAY STUPID PEOPLE WHO MIGHT BASE THEIR VOTE ON SOMETHING SUPERFICIAL. Which is just what YOU did, albeit bass-ackwards. I mean, maybe you thought Shrub was great. But by your words above, you apparently assumed that the pageantry would represent actual substance, and that whoever orchestrated it might do something equally fluffy once they had actual power. In spite of the fact that this is NEVER how things work, because everyone knows campaigning is just a game and only haphazardly reflects actual governance. Next time, vote on a Dukakis' actual record, not according to some flubbed campaign gimmick.

Posted by Bill | July 25, 2007 1:20 PM

Questions I want answered:

1) Do you believe the presidency is only checked by the impeachment of the president?

2) Do you think we should have been moving to nuclear energy 20 years ago so we'd better get on it quick?

3) Do you think Americans should pay 180% what the rest of the world does for health care? Are you prepared to be ridiculed as a communist to remedy that?

Posted by Jeffrey Davis | July 25, 2007 1:31 PM

Not, to be clear, that the tank ride wasn't a very stupid and hokey decision. But the mentality that we all agree to vote on how good of a campaign somebody runs, and not what kind of a president he or she would be, seems depressingly kneejerk. The two things are different skills. A slick, disciplined and well-orchestrated Karl Rove campaign can deliver you Dubya the Decider, and the hapless Bob Shrum can deliver you somebody sane with a brain.

Posted by Bill | July 25, 2007 1:36 PM

"Do you think it might help US non-proliferation policy if the US did a better job of living up to its NPT obligations (Obama mentioned this once, in the affirmative, briefly, in a speech)?"

Hmm. Did US adherence to the 1924 Naval Arms controls prevent Imperial Japan from dramaticaly building up its navy? Why do you think that present day nations that want nukes will react any differently?

Posted by James Robertson | July 25, 2007 1:46 PM

Pageantry's the art of shifting opinion without actually spending any critical resources. It's just another word for the bully pulpit, and it's a legitimate qualification.

Posted by Senescent | July 25, 2007 2:13 PM

Jeez. Every single one Matt's questions seems, to me, either so generalized as to be completely inane ("Is US defense spending too low, too high, or about right?") or assumptive of some kind of dualistic zero-sum situation ("Is it more important to check Chinese influence or to maintain friendly relations with China?")

If I were a candidate, I'd sure do my best to dodge all of those questions--they're just rhetorically loaded, with very little bearing on the real world or American politics.

Posted by James Gary | July 25, 2007 2:37 PM

Maybe if we got a little more pointed and insulting we'd get a specific response, or at least generate discussion. Like, do you believe in killing hundreds of thousands of people who don't threaten you to make some symbolic point about our "toughness" or our "values?" Contra Matt, maybe the question is a little more general than the messy specifics of Iraq, but it's not abstract, either. We face a choice - either we conclude that the infliction of massive amounts of violence and death as a species of value promotion is worthwhile, or we don't. I'd sure like to know what our candidates think about that, and whether they'd reject Tom Friedman's "sometimes we need to murder a few thousand random Arabs to prove a point" thesis.

Posted by scott | July 25, 2007 2:38 PM

Bill,
I never voter for Shrub. I voted for his father, Bush Sr., who was a decent president. Heck, he's the only Republican I ever voted for.

"campaigning is just a game and only haphazardly reflects actual governance" But the people who run the government are often the ones who ran the campaign. If the campaign is run incompetently, then the government likely will also be run incompetently. And the Dukakis campaign was run incompetently.

Posted by wiredog | July 25, 2007 2:54 PM

Pageantry's the art of shifting opinion without actually spending any critical resources. It's just another word for the bully pulpit, and it's a legitimate qualification.

Well, I'm really not sure what conclusions one could safely draw from Dukakis' failed tank pageant about his ability to hold the bully pulpit on national defense once in office. I don't think the bully pulpit derives from the individual in office nearly as much as it derives from the office itself. You seem to be saying Dukakis' failure to project strength in a campaign means by default he wouldn't project actual strength in office - or that it was right to reward Shrub for Dukakis' failure - or maybe something more general, like decrying a basic lack of political smarts which might hamper his accomplishing real things. Since all elections are a choice between the lesser of two evils, I hope I'll always side with the less savvy politician with whom I agree on policy than the better showman and facilitator with whom I don't. Aside from the fact that pretty much everything changes once you really are President, I think it's a lot to assume that one misguided campaign stunt might disqualify anybody from presiding - certainly doesn't outweigh consideration of the prior record in public office. Your supposed 'legitimate qualification' is mostly legitimized by taking it for granted that we put more faith in personality and telegenic instinct than actual governance, IMO. I think your asserting its relevance sorta reinforces my point. The bully pulpit has far more to do with how you get elected than it does with how government actually works.

Posted by Bill | July 25, 2007 3:25 PM

I never voter for Shrub. I voted for his father, Bush Sr., who was a decent president. Heck, he's the only Republican I ever voted for.

I used "Shrub" to refer to Bush I. I guess I use it indiscriminately.

"campaigning is just a game and only haphazardly reflects actual governance" But the people who run the government are often the ones who ran the campaign. If the campaign is run incompetently, then the government likely will also be run incompetently. And the Dukakis campaign was run incompetently.

Then how do you explain Bush II's campaign vs. governance? Competent campaign, incompetent government. I think you're just wrong. They're different animals.

Posted by Bill | July 25, 2007 3:29 PM

@wiredog: The people who become Secretary of State never, ever are the people in the campaign who think up or authorize stunts like the tank ride. This is true even in the all-politicized-all-the-way Bush II administration.

So what you thought to yourself was simply wrong.

Posted by Nell | July 25, 2007 3:48 PM

Condi Rice, Colin Powell, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz. None of them ran Bush's campaign. Karl Rove did, and once Bush was in office his job was to basically continue running Bush's campaign. To the extent Rove influences actual policy, it's all policy viewed through the prism of getting reelected. (It wasn't Rove's dream to invade Iraq; it was Cheney's. Rove's job was to sell the war for the election.) Who ran Clinton's campaign? Begala and Cueball. Neither of them ended up high level cabinet officials.

So point reinforced: Americans pick their presidents exactly the way people running presidential campaigns would like them to, i.e. based on the quality of the campaign. People who run presidential campaigns sell their candidates exactly the way the public wants them to. The two are made for each other. The next president is always just another consumer product, like detergent. If the TV commercial sucks I probably won't buy it.

Posted by Bill | July 25, 2007 5:24 PM

In 88, when that election happened, James Baker was Treasury Secretary. Also campaign manager. He was also, at one time or other, chief of staff and Secretary of State.

Posted by wiredog | July 25, 2007 5:35 PM

To answer two of those questions along similar lines...yes the US military spending is too high and yes the Bush Adminstration is devoting too much attention to the Middle East.

The war in Iraq is taking away vital political attention and funds from areas which could make a real and lasting impact on the global security environment.

The UN has developed a set of Millennium Development Goals that make the fight agaist global poverty a priority. They lay out an achievable plan to do this. The US should devote its considerable political and economic power to this effort. Military spending and attention only to the Middle East are taking away our ability to do this.

Posted by Maggie | July 25, 2007 10:14 PM

Posted by Maggie | July 25, 2007 10:14 PM:"To answer two of those questions along similar lines...yes the US military spending is too high and yes the Bush Adminstration is devoting too much attention to the Middle East."

Having read the ever-excellent Edward Luttwak say, basically, we should all ignore the Middle East, I am inclined to agree with that last point. See:

http://www.prospect-magazine.co.uk/article_details.php?id=9302

However the US is clearly not spending enough on the military and is not spending enough on the right kinds of things. If the US cannot garrison Iraq, it has a problem. The solution must be a much larger Army, which means more money, and a two-speed Army. Obviously America still needs the Heavy Metal Soviet-busting part of the Army, but that does not work so well in Iraq. It needs more light infantry as well with training in garrison type work.

Posted by Maggie | July 25, 2007 10:14 PM:"The war in Iraq is taking away vital political attention and funds from areas which could make a real and lasting impact on the global security environment.

Posted by Maggie | July 25, 2007 10:14 PM:"The UN has developed a set of Millennium Development Goals that make the fight agaist global poverty a priority. They lay out an achievable plan to do this. The US should devote its considerable political and economic power to this effort. Military spending and attention only to the Middle East are taking away our ability to do this."

The fallacy in this argument is that there is no reason to think that the former comment has any relation to the latter one. A real and lasting impact on world poverty? America is. By allowing China and India access to American markets. The MDG consist of two things - pious wishes and debt relief. I know there is a strong case for debt relief, but that will not help Africa become rich one little bit. Paying off their debts would because it would demand honest, competent, market oriented governments. Debt relief will probably only encourage more corruption and theft. America has no power whatsoever to help with any of the pious wishes - if Africa wanted universal primary education, it would have it. Presidents tend to think their Swiss Bank accounts are more worthy objects of their spending.

The other fallacy, of course, is the assumption that security is enhanced by development. As far as I can see, 9-11 was the work of wealth, Western oriented middle class Muslims. Not dirt poor ones. Development in the Muslim world, in the long term, may help reduce the threat of terrorism but in the short term will probably only increase it.

Posted by HeiGou | July 26, 2007 6:28 AM

Anyone who seriously attempts to argue that the U.S. isn't spending enough on the military is a lunatic not worth listening to. But this is the same kook who thought we could have "won" the Vietnam War if we had butchered another 3 million Vietnamese.

News flash: We spend more on the military than the next half-dozen nations combined. We account for about half of the entire fucking world's military spending.

And you think that isn't enough. Fucking kook.

Posted by Josh G. | July 26, 2007 8:44 AM