I am struck by a particularly disturbing thought that grows heavier on my psyche every day we get closer to election day in November 2016. That thought is what to do about a complete and utter lack of quality presidential candidate options as regards foreign policy leadership. As much as I find Barrak Obama's domestic policy choices to be flawed, lacking in character, poorly conceived, basically a terrible mess for the future of the country, his foreign policy has been a mixed bag of the predictable and the unintelligible. Some of his policy choices have reflected what I would like to see, foreign policy done with respect to a realist perspective of international relations, most of it has been the predictable liberal internationalist positions that weaken security, harm economic development, and generally put the U.S. at risk of losing ground in the struggle for power and security of survival. But wait, if we don't like it at least every 8 years a chance exists to have a foreign policy leader change directions. For my two cents, here are my thoughts about the potential policy directions of the top candidates for the office of U.S. President in 2016.
Hillary Clinton: You know what you get with this candidate. The problem is we all know she thinks every problem in the world can be solved by the U.S. utilizing her pathetic view of cooperative development based on her view of what is good and bad in the U.S. I believe she will be a lousy commander in chief, much like her husband was. I believe that she will continue a policy pathway that compromises U.S. security interests in the name of social engineering.
Bernie Sanders: What happens when the son of a communist becomes a politician, but does not want to admit he is a communist? A socialist is born. Sanders is a socialist, basically a communist by many standards. What sort of foreign policy does that entail--more liberal internationalism and wrecking of U.S. security.
Ted Cruz: Cruz is a neo-con extraordinaire. He is not a liberal, but he believes in the power of the U.S. to solve all the world's problems. The problem is that I believe he is a little bit mean spirited and U.S. security does not come from wielding the sword, but from having the sword to wield when needed (a critical difference that I do not think Cruz understands).
Marco Rubio: see my previous comments.
Donald Trump: What do you get if you elect a businessman who is more famous for his failures than his successes? What do you get if you elect someone with no experience in making foreign policy whatsoever as president? What do you get if you elect someone who really has shown no understanding of current international agreements, laws, and practices? Are you scared of this candidate? I am.
Hillary Clinton: You know what you get with this candidate. The problem is we all know she thinks every problem in the world can be solved by the U.S. utilizing her pathetic view of cooperative development based on her view of what is good and bad in the U.S. I believe she will be a lousy commander in chief, much like her husband was. I believe that she will continue a policy pathway that compromises U.S. security interests in the name of social engineering.
Bernie Sanders: What happens when the son of a communist becomes a politician, but does not want to admit he is a communist? A socialist is born. Sanders is a socialist, basically a communist by many standards. What sort of foreign policy does that entail--more liberal internationalism and wrecking of U.S. security.
Ted Cruz: Cruz is a neo-con extraordinaire. He is not a liberal, but he believes in the power of the U.S. to solve all the world's problems. The problem is that I believe he is a little bit mean spirited and U.S. security does not come from wielding the sword, but from having the sword to wield when needed (a critical difference that I do not think Cruz understands).
Marco Rubio: see my previous comments.
Donald Trump: What do you get if you elect a businessman who is more famous for his failures than his successes? What do you get if you elect someone with no experience in making foreign policy whatsoever as president? What do you get if you elect someone who really has shown no understanding of current international agreements, laws, and practices? Are you scared of this candidate? I am.
