Post debate thoughts

Two caveats: first, this is not a partisan assessment, although, for what it’s worth, I spoke briefly with my coauthor after the debate and we both thought it was roughly a draw. You probably didn’t learn much unless you’re tuning into the race for the first time. I found the whole thing rather dull, with both candidates, especially JM, talking past the other. Second, I strongly suspect Tom Friedman will write his next column about roughly these same issues (although I imagine he’ll hone in on energy).

Perhaps it is asking too much, but I am enormously frustrated that the 2008 ‘foreign policy’ presidential debate is still framed almost entirely in terms of the ‘high politics’ of security. Let me be clear: I understand that the US is fighting two wars, and that Iran is trying to acquire nuclear weapons. These issues are of paramount importance, and we need to hear what the candidates think. But there is a lot more going on in the world that Americans need to talk about.

We heard nothing about multilateral trade, little about energy (except when framed as a mercantilist issue of ‘energy independence’), little about China (except when BO framed it as a vague threat), nothing about India or Brazil, nothing about climate change, nothing about reforming the multilateral institutions (except for JM’s patently absurd and impractical “community of democracies” idea). These are enormous issues.

How, in practical terms, should the US encourage China to become a responsible stakeholder in the global political economy? Are they already? Do we view them as a threat? If so, why?

How would either candidate advance multilateral trade negotiations? Would they?

How do we foster links with Brazil, one of the world’s most important and largest emerging markets?

Is it worth weakening the NPT to foster nuclear ties with India? How does that fit into America’s strategic vision?

What practical steps would either candidate take to combat climate change, by definition a global issue?

I am struck by an insightful point that Fareed Zakaria has made recently. US foreign policy focuses on the ‘losers’ of globalization (terrorists, failed states, etc). At best, that’s half the coin. In the long run, the greatest challenges (or if you’re optimistic, opportunities) come from the winners. Whoever chose the questions for this debate did Americans a great disservice by neglecting to address those winners.

All I’m saying is, if you keep telling people that globalization is this scary, negative thing that eliminates jobs and empowers COMMUNIST CHINA, it’s no wonder they’re going to hate it…

Am I asking too much?