Campaign Desk

Off The Map

Foreign affairs were missing, and missed, in debate season

By Clint Hendler Wed 27 Feb 2008 05:50 PM 

• Print
• Email
• Comments
• Single page

Late in last night’s debate, after a brief discussion of Russia’s upcoming “election” and extended, familiar, plowings of the few domestic issues that have made the race, Hillary Clinton made this extended point:

We could have gone around the world. We could have gone to Latin America and talked about, you know, the retreat from democracy. We could have talked about Africa and the failure to end the genocide in Darfur.

We could have gone on to talk about the challenge that China faces and the Middle East, which is deteriorating under the pressures of Hamas, Hezbollah, and the interference that is putting Israel’s security at stake.

Hear, hear. We’ve had 20 Democratic debates, and just about as many on the Republican side. Not one has focused on foreign policy.

Iraq, of course comes up again and again, as it should. And we’ve had glancing blows at other hotspots—Israel, Iran, Pakistan, and the like.

But there’s a wide world out there, full of problems, conventional and non. You might not have known it, though, watching these debates. It certainly shows something that the most prominent campaign-season foreign policy tiff between Clinton and Obama sprung from a viewer-submitted YouTube question.

And considering how much latitude presidents have in international affairs, it would be (would have been?) nice to hear about them. Building off what Clinton mentioned, here’s a further back of the envelope list.

North Korea NATO expansion China (Taiwan, human rights, influence in Africa) Global AIDS/contraception The World Court East Timor Lebanon Kenya United Nations reform Foreign aid/global anti-poverty

I would say that’s just for starters—but, as far as the primaries go, it’s too late to start.

CJR

If you enjoy this kind of press criticism please consider a subscription to our magazine, Columbia Journalism Review—a deal via the Web site at $19.95.

To subscribe, to give CJR as a gift, to renew, or to check student and CJR in the Classroom rates, click here.

Subscribe Today

Comments

padikiller

Wed 27 Feb 2008 10:45 PM

"here, here"?...

The proper term is "hear, hear"...

As for the substance of the article...

The reason we haven't heard about foreign policy during the primaries is that the electorate is too stupid to understand the issues.

The only thing the average voter cares about are domestic issues... Tax cuts... S-CHIP... Health care reform... Etc...

The masses don't care about the genocide in Darfur because the media ignores it. We only hear about it on Entertainment Tonight when George Clooney makes another trip.

They don't care about North Korea because they don't know just what a whack job Kim Jong-il really is. We only get to see the New York Philharmonic tuning up in a glitzy Pyongyang theater.

70 percent of Americans can't name EITHER of their state's U.S. Senators. And yet these ignoramuses are entitled to vote.

AhmNee

Fri 7 Mar 2008 02:00 AM

LOL. Padikiller: Defender of Democracy.

Who should be entitled to vote? Call it morbid curiosity.

padikiller

Fri 7 Mar 2008 11:45 AM

I believe that every registered voter should have to pass at least the same examination immigrants must pass in order to become U.S. citizens in order to vote in federal elections and also a similar examination of knowledge of state government in order to vote in state elections. Voters should be at least 21 and should be neither convicted felons nor adjudicated mentally incompetent.

AhmNee

Fri 7 Mar 2008 01:54 PM

Kind of defeats government of and by the people, doesn't it? You would effectually disenfranchise, if we use your number, 70% of Americans and deny them representation in our government. Yet they'd be required to pay taxes and be asked to fight and die in your military.

Sounds an awful lot like a step back toward feudalism.

padikiller

Fri 7 Mar 2008 09:38 PM

Ignorant people shouldn't vote.

AhmNee

Mon 10 Mar 2008 12:23 PM

Who decides who is or isn't ignorant?-

padikiller

Mon 10 Mar 2008 07:34 PM

What part are you not comprehending?

As I already stated in plain English, I believe voters in federal elections should should have to pass, at a minimum, the same test that immigrants must pass to become citizens. I also believe that the states should offer similar tests to qualify voters to for state elections. Voters should be non-felons, non-crazy and 21 or older.

What part of this did you not understand the first time?

AhmNee

Wed 12 Mar 2008 10:50 AM

I guess I was just a bit fuzzy about the whole disenfranchising 70% of the population and the entire taxation without representation bit ... you know ... that inconsequential thing our founding fathers fought that one war over.

padikiller

Wed 12 Mar 2008 05:59 PM

AhmNee blithers

I guess I was just a bit fuzzy about the whole disenfranchising 70% of the population and the entire taxation without representation bit ... you know ... that inconsequential thing our founding fathers fought that one war over.

padikiller schools

The founding fathers did not intend to let stupid people vote. In fact, the states were in control of franchise.

The FACT is that the founding fathers did not let the people vote for: 1. President (the President is still not popularly elected) 2. Vice President (still not popularly elected) 3. Judges (still not elected at all) or 4. U.S. Senators (weren't required to be popularly elected until 1913).

The ONLY vote that the founding fathers provided for was for the the election of U.S. Representatives, and the founders never intended that the franchise be extended to include anyone other than reputable, land-owning white males.

This is the reality, pal...

Think first, then post... Let's keep it real, OK?

AhmNee

Thu 13 Mar 2008 01:18 PM

Right, right. They also allowed for the owning of slaves and offered no provision for the rights of women to be represented. Clearly we'd better rethink this whole equality fad going on in this country.

Lets do as you say, let's keep it real. How long do you think it would take for the stupid people to take up arms against the government if they weren't provided even the illusion that their beliefs were being represented in the government?

The electoral college wasn't set up to protect us from 'stupid people'. You're distorting the entire concept. It was a struck compromise from the debates where the states couldn't agree on whether the executive should be decided by popular vote, vote of the state representatives, vote of the governors, etc.

Judges aren't voted upon because they are part of the checks and balances of our government and their decisions were not to be influenced through political election process. IE, doing what's popular in order to secure a term in office.

As far as reality, I don't want any part of your reality. It's too fluid and malleable by your own hypocrisy for my taste.

padikiller

Thu 13 Mar 2008 03:52 PM

AhmNee Dodges His Ridiculous Claim That The Founders Intended To Let Stupid People Vote

How long do you think it would take for the stupid people to take up arms against the government if they weren't provided even the illusion that their beliefs were being represented in the government?

padikiller wonders

Are you actually advocating for the enfranchisemnet of stupidity?...

Your argument is fallacious, as usual. Stupid people never rise on their own in revolutions... They are always led by smart people.

The simple FACT of the matter is that the overriding fear of the Founders at the Constotutional Convention was that stupid rubes would get to vote. The subject was debated rigorously and carefully and in the end ignoramuses were disenranchised deliberately.

Your stated distaste of reality will not hinder you in McLearyland... Enjoy your trip...

AhmNee

Thu 20 Mar 2008 01:27 AM

Funny thing about that ... Madison kept some fairly specific notes on the debates in the congressional congress. "Stupid rubes getting to vote" didn't seem to be in those notes. Keep trying to rewrite history, I'm sure it will take eventually.

You've made yourself completely transparent, Padikins, exposed your little despot. It's just too bad that under your proposed changes to electoral policy, you'd not get to vote either.

Post a comment

We ask our readers to express opinions in a manner respectful to the readers and writers of CJR. Criticism of ideas is strongly encouraged, but personal, ad hominem attack will result in deletion of posted comments and, after one repeat violation, banning of the individual user. CJR reserves the right to edit or delete, for reasons of content, comments submitted to CJR. We also ask users to please keep posts to the topic at hand; those wandering far afield or appearing to be spam may be deleted. Please read the complete comment policy and full legal disclaimer.

 

Name: Email Address:

URL: Remember personal info?

Comments: (you may use HTML tags for style)