I have decided which presidential candidate I will vote for. I had my mind made up about four years ago. The foreign policy debate was not going to sway my decision. Truth be told, I do not align well with either candidate when it comes to foreign policy. My personal foreign policies have never found a good political home and probably never will, unless Mother Theresa and General Schwartzkopf ever decide to form a party together.
The following ruminations on last night’s debate are those of a very independent, very biased, and very weary swing state voter.
One man had a record to prove and defend; the other had an opinion to defend. And the one with the opinion often had no choice but to give his opinion to journalists before he ever had all of the facts. These types of debates are rarely fair, or useful.
In short, the debate could be summed up as such- Governor Mitt Romney wants the U.S. to play a stronger role in international and peacekeeping conflicts, and would spend more money on the military. President Barack Obama believes the U.S. plays a strong role in the world theater, and tried to show that his leadership is working, and that Romney’s ideas would not work. The problem is that the two men want the same outcome, but their plans to get there are barely different from the other’s.
Shh! I can hear all of you Romney supporters screaming at me from here! I know you hate to hear anyone suggest such a thing, but it’s the truth. Romney and Obama are not that different when it comes to foreign policy.
Both men are firmly against Iran getting a nuclear weapon. Both favor sanctions against Iran, and want to form better allies in the fight (via sanctions) against Iran. Romney tried to set himself apart by saying he would take a harder line than Obama, and would indict Iran’s president for inciting “genocide.” Whether or not that is actually a feasible or possible plan, I do not know. It sounds exciting and strong, but may not actually play out well at the United Nations.
The facts of the matter are that we only have so many options in dealing with Iran- turn a blind eye and hope for the best, or military actions, sanctions, and strategic alliances. To the best of my knowledge only the Green Party favors the blind eye approach. (And Ron Paul to some extent.)
On the subject of Libya, President Obama said he has taken a leadership role in the changing Middle East, including the ousting of Libyan leader Moammar Gadhafi from power.
“I and Americans took leadership in organizing an international coalition that made sure that we were able to-without putting troops on the ground, at the cost of less than what we spent in two weeks in Iraq-liberate a country that had been under the yoke of dictatorship for 40 years, got rid of a despot who had killed Americans,” he said. (And English teachers everywhere cringed.)
For some reason Romney didn’t take that opportunity to attack the President on the Benghazi assassination. He has not been shy about criticizing Obama on the issue in recent weeks. It was surprising that he didn’t do it in this debate. In my opinion, this was a big mistake.
The one place the two candidates differ significantly is on defense spending, and these differences aren’t just their differences, they are deep down to the core party differences. Democrats don’t like to put money into the military, Republicans do. It is that simple.
Here’s some food for thought: Democrats like to “create jobs” within the federal government. Republicans like to create jobs with military spending (the jobs come both within the military and in civilian contracts with the military). There is a well defined line between federal and military jobs. The biggest difference is that federal jobs don’t help the overall economy, they help the government. And it creates a finite number of jobs. Military sector jobs not only help the military, they help foster research, inventions, development, and improvements from the commercial sector, and help the economy. Not all military spending goes to bullets and bombs. Much of it goes to create new technology that starts out as a need for the military, and gets adapted for civilian use. Case in point- the internet (regardless of what Al Gore may have told you), microwaves, cargo pants, and duct tape.
Both men declared their support for Israel when asked what the U.S. should do if Israel were attacked by Iran. Obama said, “I will stand with Israel if Israel is attacked.” Moments later Romney declared, “If Israel is attacked, we have their back.”
Both candidates also oppose U.S. military involvement in Syria. Obama did try and make some points on his leadership efforts in Syria. However, most of these points failed to hit home, and will not resonate with anyone. The U.S. population overall has remained disconnected to the Syrian conflict, with most of the major news outlets (excluding CNN) largely ignoring it.
American Mormons tend to take their role in international conflicts quite seriously. Many tend to see failed and toppled regimes as an “opportunity for the Gospel to move forward in that country.” And many believe (whether right or wrong) that it is their sacred duty to bring American values and democracy to all other countries. It is nothing more than my personal experience and opinion that these are the same people who have put their faith and trust in Mitt Romney. They may be surprised to take a step back and realize that he does not appear to share the same “America must conquer all” mentality. He believes in a strong military and a strong America, but has shown considerable restraint in foreign policy. He is heavier on negotiations and sanctions, and does not appear to have a “let’s Americanize the world” mentality.
A CNN poll released right after the debate showed no clear “winner” for the night. An MSNBC poll showed 59% of viewers were more likely to vote for Obama after the debate (no surprise there). The ABC poll showed the candidates in a virtual tie on international affairs. And a CBS poll showed 53% of the people feeling Obama “won” the debate, 23% felt Romney won, and 25% felt it was a tie. As of midnight, there was not a Fox News report on who “won” the night.
It is unfortunate that international affairs and foreign policy may continue to stay the American people’s shortcoming. Equal or adequate time is rarely given in classrooms or the media when it comes to the subjects. There are enough domestic issues to fill newspapers and news reports, without needing to invest much in conflicts and stories in faraway lands. And so we are often misinformed and under-informed. We are naively guided by biases, rumors, and third hand ideas, rather than facts and figures. We build opinions on what another country needs having never been to that country, met someone from that country, or listened to the voice of the people in that country. All too often we assume that what they need is a little dose of our American medicine and trample our military in to give it to them. I am happy that both presidential candidates shy away from this approach, and instead lean to negotiations and sanctions first.
We have fourteen days left until the ballots are counted. (I do not believe we will have a decisive winner on election night. I expect it will take a few days for legal matters to get resolved and numbers to be double-checked.) Until then I encourage everyone, regardless of party affiliation, to take a step back and read the platforms and policies of all candidates- and not just the presidential candidates. Learn more about Congress, the Senate, and the local elections. A president has great influence over the economy, but state officials have more power to bring jobs into local communities. Don’t listen to the ads on the radio and the television. Go to the candidates’ websites and read their actual words for yourself. And then go vote!
May the best man win.
Erin Ann McBride is a writer, dreamer, and blogger. Check out her newest book, “You Heard It Here First,” a romantic political thriller with conservative values and a good sense of humor!
She enjoys blogging at Swing State Voter , all things pop culture, all things 80’s, and watching canceled science fiction TV series. She is a native of Washington, D.C., and currently resides in Roanoke, Va.
