As a practical matter, I understand why domestic issues were discussed in what was supposed to be a debate on foreign policy. The current economic crisis needed to be addressed. Nonetheless, the loss of nearly thirty-five minutes was significant. Foreign policy is an arena in which the president always has significant control. Given the challenges of rebuilding America’s international credibility, running two wars, stopping nuclear proliferation, and handling countless other problems, it is clear that we needed more than an hour’s worth of discussion on an area of policy where the scope of executive power is vast indeed.
At the very least, the debate did emphasize the magnitude of the challenge, especially concerning the now crucial issue of Russia’s newfound aggressiveness. Tellingly, the candidates were not shy about sharing their concerns of a resurgent Russia and reassuring Russia’s neighbors that they will be protected and brought into NATO. These comments unavoidably encourage the view that NATO is to some degree an anti-Russian organization. Our willingness to upset the Russian government should be a sign that this relationship is in serious trouble. No matter how badly they behave, we are probably going to need to work with the Russians in order to handle other international threats, such as nuclear proliferation. The next president is going to have a tough time trying to maintain the balance between checking inappropriate behavior and getting Russia’s support on other serious issues.
Unfortunately, the debate yielded little new insight into how the candidates plan to meet these challenges. The debate was focused on the same arguments that have been made countless times before on Iraq, Afghanistan, Russia, Iran and the threat of terrorism. We’ve already heard ample discussion of the candidates’ views on Iraq and have been treated to the increasingly ridiculous argument about whether a president should meet a world leader without preconditions.
What if the economy had not dominated a third of the time available? For one thing, we might have had some discussion about China’s human rights record and its rising economic power in relation to the American economy. Beyond the obvious, however, I wish that Jim Lehrer had asked questions about issues that do not dominate news coverage and stump speeches. When you have the candidates captive in front of the country, you should feel an obligation to ask questions that probe their broader views and bring critical, but less familiar, topics to the public’s attention.
We know what they want to do about today’s major challenges, but we also need to know what they would do about the problems that haven’t happened yet. We need to know how they see our country and its role in the world. To get a better idea about how the next president will interact with the world, Lehrer should have asked the candidates if they believe that the United States should be the sole superpower. Although both candidates would first talk about the importance of international allies, their justifications for American leadership and the language they use to describe it would be enlightening. We could also have learned a lot more about the conditions under which they would use force by moving the discussion beyond potential nuclear threats and into an examination of the persistent problem of humanitarian interventions. There would also have been value in hearing the way they discuss policy towards the regions of the world that do not dominate the campaign. What are their priorities in Latin America and Africa? How involved will we be in these regions and will that involvement revolve around humanitarian or material goals?
Ultimately, the debate failed to tell us enough about these men and their visions for American’s role in the world. Foreign policy is too vital an issue for voters to be pulling the lever with insufficient information. The American people deserve to get a second debate on foreign policy. Sadly, I have no illusion that anyone will prioritize the education of the electorate over the maneuverings of presidential politics.