2008 is shaping up to be a year in which foreign policy remains at the forefront of voter's minds. This is a rarity in American politics. Usually the economy and the personalities of the candidates are the focus of attention. But in post- 9/11 America, foreign policy has become a staple of presidential politics. So in honor of this new trend, before we examine any other presidential contenders, let's take a look back at the current occupant of the Oval Office when he was a candidate for president in 2000.
Of course, we know all about the sterling record of President George W. Bush, who has presided over the war on civil liberties - I mean, terror, excuse me - since taking office in 2001. We all know his exemplary conduct as Commander in Chief, particularly when he attacked the wrong country - I mean, America's enemies - and committed American forces to protecting freedom around the world. And we've all heard the stories of young George W. Bush, the heroic fighter pilot, who spent the Vietnam War flying jets in the perilous skies above...um, Alabama.
Wait, that's not exactly correct. Bush didn't report for duty most of the time.
Anyway, as a candidate for president in 2000, the soon to be CINC didn't really talk much about foreign policy. Maybe this was because the extent of his foreign policy experience was signing Dominicans to play for the Texas Rangers. Regardless, foreign policy was not a major issue in the 2000 election. The country was at peace. The horror of 9/11 was still a year away. Iraq was a non-factor. The budget was not only balanced, there was a surplus, and George W. Bush barely mentioned foreign policy in his stump speech in 2000, and avoided the subject whenever possible during the presidential debates.
For anyone considering voting for John McCain next year, consider this interesting exchange between moderator Jim Lehrer and Governor Bush in the second presidential debate, held on October 11, 2000:
MODERATOR: The use of the military -- some people are now suggesting that if you don't want to use the military to maintain the peace, to do the civil thing, is it time to consider a civil force of some kind that comes in after the military that builds nations or all of that? Is that on your radar screen?
BUSH: I don't think so. I think what we need to do is convince people who live in the lands they live in to build the nations. Maybe I'm missing something here. I mean, we're going to have kind of a nation building core from America? Absolutely not. Our military is meant to fight and win war. That's what it's meant to do. And when it gets overextended, morale drops. I strongly believe we need to have a military presence in the peninsula, not only to keep the peace in the peninsula, but to keep regional stability. And I strongly believe we need to keep a presence in NATO, but I'm going to be judicious as to how to use the military. It needs to be in our vital interest, the mission needs to be clear, and the exit strategy obvious."
Well! Isn't that interesting?!?
What does this have to do with John McCain, you ask? I'll get into the full biography of McCain soon, but for the moment, consider this: Presidential candidates rarely tell you what they're actually going to do if they become president. FDR and Reagan promised to balance the federal budget. Instead they dramatically increased it. LBJ promised to stay out of Vietnam. Two years after the election, there were half a million American soldiers deployed there. The first President Bush famously promised "No new taxes", a pledge he broke in his second year in office.
And now, in the early days of a presidential campaign, a majority of the American people want to see a withdrawal of U.S. forces from Iraq. The sooner the better. And yet Senator McCain, who is a candidate for president, is not for a withdrawal. As previously mentioned in this blog, he is for an increase in troop levels in Iraq. The point is this: When it comes to foreign policy, whether you agree with him or not (and I don't), John McCain will tell you what he really thinks.
When times are good, presidential campaigns are about fluff. When the economy is in good shape, when the country is at peace, we have time to worry about things like how silly Mike Dukakis looks riding on a tank, or whether Bob Dole is too mean, or whether you'd rather have Al Gore or George W. Bush over to the family barbecue(An actual polling question). And so, in 2000, times were good, and having decided that they would prefer to have a beer with Bush (even though he's a recovering alcoholic) the American people elected George W. Bush in a landslide, giving him a strong electoral mandate to enact his conservative agenda.
Wait, that's not right....I mean, after careful consideration of the issues, people decided that Bush was closer to their own beliefs, and narrowly elected him over Al Gore, who just lacked the resume necessary to be president.
Hang on, I don't think that's right either.....Hmm.
Wait, I've got it. And so, after eight years of record prosperity under Bill Clinton, the American people chose Al Gore to succeed him, with Gore's 24 years of experience in elective office, his comprehensive plans to extend American prosperity into the 21st century, his commitment to reducing the effects of global warming, and his basic competence on the issues of the day making the difference between himself and a candidate who was an irrelevant governor, a lackluster owner of a bad baseball team and a failed businessman.
But Bush became president anyway.
Now, finally, after eight years of George W. Bush, we're going to pick a new president. And the Republican Party will choose a nominee, hopefully someone who is qualified to be the Commander in Chief in fact, not just in name, if that person should be elected. We've already discussed the temporary frontrunner, Mr. Giuliani. Now it's time to take a closer look at Senator McCain.
A short biography of the senator and an assessment of his prospects will appear in the next post on this blog. Thanks for reading.
