similarities and differences
foreign policy stands out
If Americans genuinely believe Joe Biden is too old for the presidency, then so is Donald Trump as the difference in their ages is negligible: Biden is 81 while Trump is 78. Each was born in the 1940s to put it another way, well before the vast majority of this country or the world. I actually know many people born in the 1930s who remain as sharp as can be but the rigors of the presidency are greater than what most people confront. The Constitution, that precious document I cited proudly only a couple of days ago as a Founding set of principles , mentions only a minimum age for someone to run for president rather than an upper age.
If the ability to exhibit sustained, rational and coherent arguments forms the basis to concern about president, then the debate performance by both candidates ought to worry voters. Biden’s hesitancy coincided with the on-going Trump irrational, fact-challenged assertions and complete non-sequiters. Neither candidate had a strong performance, if this is the measure.
Foreign policy is a minor part of every U.S. election but provides stark policy evidence (not aspiration) where they differ substantially. Former President Trump advocates being significantly ‘harder’ on China while simultaneously praising the strength of Xi Jinping. The major tool of statecraft Trump is discussing to combat China’s strength is tariffs, even though those taxes would only hit U.S. buyers rather than Chinese producers.
The former president promises to scale back U.S. involvement around the world, if not eliminate some of our commitments. He eschews alliances and partnerships, harshly criticizing NATO, Korea and Japan. The former president argues that the aforementioned states all pay an insufficient amount for their defense he sees us as providing in a quid pro quo manner. Fair enough but that has implications. As I told an audience in St. Petersburg, Florida, in early February, I can only see defense spending rise under a second Trump administration. I am puzzled to understand how alienating the member states of NATO or especially the two military and economic powerhouses in northeast Asia at the same time we seek to reinforce our position as the leading nation in the global system advances our position. The former president has a decided view of what he opposes while supporting Vlad over our own intelligence community and avowing strong respect for some of the harshest rulers in the world. The former President is strong on conviction but not providing indication of the requisite cause and effect his positions will create.
Whatever Joe Biden’s many flaws, he has substantially reinforced our partnerships and alliances. NATO, to my shock, remains united in opposing Vlad in Ukraine in the latter’s quest to recreate the Soviet empire. Beijing’s leadership arises from slumber daily wondering how the United States recreated a strong relationship with the Philippines, deepened bilateral ties with both Korea and Japan while facilitating an unthinkable rapprochement between their two governments despite a century of bad blood, and created AUKUS to round out an expansion of formal U.S. mil-to-mil links with Australia and Britain on submarines and trilateral defense ties. Biden’s strategy has been far from perfect with a perplexing balancing act still in effect in the Middle East over the Israeli-Palestinian question but the three and half years have produced results of some magnitude.
Elections are voters’ opportunity to choose a leader for the next four years (in the case of a president). Most of our votes ultimately result from domestic or chequebook considerations rather than foreign policy, of course. We are not, additionally, seeing much indication that citizens are relying on evidence for their choices as the U.S. economy is markedly better than that of the rest of the world yet pessimism remains high.
My analysis is that people are generally not measuring competency by age or track record to assist us in making this serious choice; we are far too often reacting to other concerns such as partisan control of the country or what we are hearing on our favorite news source (if we have one). Foreign policy achievements are evidence of some skill and accomplishments but voters seem to be taking that as a given as if all steps get us to the same outcome when clearly they do not. That lack of systematic consideration of foreign policy is perhaps unsurprising but let’s not kid ourselves on the value of the performance in the ‘debate’ equates to policy outcomes. It does not.
Each of us votes based on priorities we hold, though I realize many people vote purely on partisan affiliation rather than on enduring principles in this era of friends and foe. I would remind us that we are all Americans, if we vote: red, white, and blue rather than some beings from alien planets. I am one to encourage participation because being a citizen with this so-far inalienable right is a privilege not to be taken granted.
As we consider the choices we face and candidates auditioning for that vote, ask yourself what role in the world do we want to leave subsequent generations? That question motivates me a great deal. If we ask some among us, even as volunteers, to fight and potentially die for us, what is the result for those behind? Legacies, as a form of actions and consequences, may not become apparent for a long while. Many things can, as we have witnessed over the past seven days, be reversed in policy though the effects may be quite significant, expensive, and counter to our expectation on 2 July 2024.
Thank you for reading this column. I received a wonderful, detailed comment from a reader yesterday about why the people of Europe are turning to the hard right. The author had spent time there on deployment and evidenced a strong sympathy for the conditions motivating so many. Those issues pertain to many here as well so I greatly value hearing her views. Please feel free to chime in, contradict, or question; that is the nature of discussion I seek to foster. Please feel free to circulate this if you think it of value. Thank you to those who subscribe.
Beloved Harry Truman wanted to say hello this morning as the basked in the sun. He is not the same as our children, of course, but he can be a beautiful lad, particularly in the sunlight.
Be well and be safe. FIN
Thanks
I sat in on a virtual forum yesterday. The discussion point was Yemen and the increasing aggressiveness of the Houthis (backed by Iran of course). The consensus from the "expert" presenter was that what we're seeing in Yemen is a direct result of the U.S.'s soft-approach to foreign policy. He stated that in his opinion (and he had the regional credentials to be considered at least very knowledgeable)...the U.S. looks weak to both our allies and adversaries in the Middle East. They routinely take advantage of the current administration's unwillingness to respond to aggression with force. They realize they can continue to slow-roll their tactical and strategic plans up to the U.S.'s "red line" and then back off long enough to regroup and attack again. I'm sure others would have a different opinion but it seems clear that these groups do not worry about a U.S. response enough to cease and desist their efforts. Whatever we're doing may not be enough to tamp down current attacks. CNN (which leans pretty far left) had an article entitled: "Foreign diplomats react with horror to Biden's dismal debate performance."
https://www.cnn.com/2024/06/28/politics/foreign-diplomats-biden-debate-reaction/index.html
Some of the quotes:
“It is a sad reality that Biden is old, and he is getting older. We saw it. I had difficulties understanding what he was saying, and I understand English pretty well,” said a second European diplomat.
“Trump ate him alive,” said an Arab diplomat.
“I was shell-shocked. I could not believe my eyes,” an Asian diplomat said of Biden’s performance.
As to the age issue.... of course the media is spinning this at warp speeds. However, I watched the White House press conference today and KJP did her best to put a positive face on all this. Her body language and non-verbal's painted a different picture to me. And it was clear the media reps in the room were either not happy with her answers or not buying them...or both. I get the age of the two contenders is not that far apart.... but their appearances in public settings (movements, facial expressions, situational awareness) are vastly different. Having a parent who developed dementia and later, passed away from Alzheimer's, the mannerisms, expressions and even the verbal delivery of Pres. Biden show tell-tale signs of a person potentially entering that condition regardless of KJP's answer to that direct question when it was posed to her today. Of course she's going to say no. It's very sad to go through that condition with a parent up-close as they can no longer drive, remember people, situations, etc. It's also very sad to see the current leader of our country in his condition and no one wanting to recognize it, admit it and more importantly, do something about it for fear of losing power. For his own quality of life, he should step down and let the political situation run its course. If, as the Administration is saying, his Vice President is competent and ready to step in should she have to do so (the #1 job of a VP and the reason they're picked)... let's see that play out. Let's put her 59 years up against the other candidate's age argument and let the voters decide. Neither current candidate is a great choice and it's just unbelievable that this is the best we can do.