 The voters picked Mr. Huckabee and Mr. Obama as the Republican and
Democratic favorites. People went with change over experience. The
fact that neither candidate chosen has any international experience
seemed not to matter.It will matter in January 2009 when one of
them (or one of the others) takes the chair in the Oval Office --
and something weird happens in Pakistan, Iraq, the Gaza strip, etc.
If that happens, the president's international advisers will be
the key. But if those advisers disagree, as they often do, the
president will have no personal experience in places like Islamabad
(which is a much prettier city in the mountains than the hot, humid
seaport of Karachi, Pakistan) to know what is the right course of
action. We had that in the tug-of-war between Bush's advisers
(remember Colin Powell vs. Rumsfeld -- Bush followed Rumsfeld's
advice, which was wrong, instead of the general, who was right!)
Unless someone like John McCain wins (the one remaining foreign
policy expert; Biden and Richardson got 1 percent or less!) the
question will be what kind of advisers on foreign policy will they
have? WHO would they look to for guidance on dealing with unstable,
nuclear Pakistan, Russia's new power, China's economic strength and
space-age muscle?
But don't be surprised if Americans pick change over experience
-- and messages of hope over fear and negative ads. Maybe the
message is that experience without change is not what they want.
Maybe they want change and experience in the same package. If they
can't get that, they will go with change and take their chances the
next president will eventually figure out how to deal with 200
countries they have never been to.
[to top of second column]
 |
 The presidency is more than taxes and spending. The next
president has to find a way to cut the spread of hate and potential
terrorism in the volatile Middle East. He or she will have to deal
with a strong Russia under Mr. Putin, which controls the
second-largest nuclear inventory in the world and has key contacts
and nuclear contracts with Iran. He or she will have to figure out a
way to deal with China, which is becoming a mighty economic power
with a non-democratic government that is challenging us in space
technology, etc.
I'd prefer someone who knows enough of the world to actually be
proactive with a real strategy that improves our economic and
leadership standing -- instead of just sitting there until we are
blindsided again (like on 9/11 and Pearl Harbor before that).
Voters won't be thinking of these issues, but a president will
have to. There is a long way to go in this election, and winning New
Hampshire is the next test of who survives this process.
Let's see who the voters pick to guide our destiny the next four
to eight years. Ordinary Americans have a lot more at stake in their
choice than they realize. They better be asking WHO these candidates
will use for foreign policy advice! Same question for the
experienced candidates...
[Text from file received from
Global
American, on behalf of
Michael Fjetland]
Click here to respond to the editor about this
article.
 |
