Ralph Nader – Independent

D+ Well intentioned, but more interventionist policies are not needed

Just like Slim Shady, he’s back again. The perennial presidential candidate from the Green Party is back running as an independent. While the media asks if he is set to play the spoiler role as he did in 2000, his actual policy positions are largely ignored. Nader has always scored points with his opposition to military adventures overseas, and militarism in general, but he still advocates an interventionist foreign policy. He has said that the United States needs to become a “Humanitarian Superpower” and that the “national purpose” needs to be to cure the ills of the Third World. To accomplish this goal Nader advocates a halt to support for foreign dictatorships – a smart plan for sure, but advocates an increase in foreign aid – an impossible plan for a country on the verge of bankruptcy. Also his advocacy of the use of force in places like Bosnia and Darfur drops his grade.

Ron Paul – Republican

A- Surprise, surprise…

An end to interventionism, imperialism, and militarism – it doesn’t get much simpler than that. Offering a foreign policy based on equal friendship, and diplomatic and economic relations, is somehow seen as a “radical” idea, but it is truly the only foreign policy a Constitutional republic should have. The only points Paul loses are for his absolute disdain for international organizations. He is correct that the United States should not cede its sovereignty to supranational authorities like the United Nations or World Trade Organization, but instead of unilaterally withdrawing from these groups the U.S. should first attempt to reform them. That being said, bringing foreign policy back to Constitutional limits, not intervening in the affairs of other nations, having a military that is not stretched too thin to defend the American people, and pursuing policies that do not bankrupt the country are well overdue.

Hillary Clinton – Democrat

F Just as militarist as McCain…if not more

If you believe that she is the candidate offering “peace” then there is some beachfront property in Arizona I’d like to sell you. She has recently said that if Iran were to attack Israel, then the United States would completely “obliterate” Iran. Hillary Clinton was one of the leading voices in her husband’s administration pushing for military intervention in the Balkans during the 90s. She not only voted for the Iraq War – a vote she will not apologize, but was a leading proponent for the war – a position she held until the polls started to dramatically shift in the opposite direction. She has claimed she will withdraw combat troops from Iraq, but has said nothing of closing the military bases that have been established there – a position that puts her in the same camp as John McCain. She has criticized Barack Obama for his contention that he would meet diplomatically with leaders of hostile states. She is onboard with military intervention in Darfur. It is a wonder what other countries she will wish to send American troops to whether there is a 3am phone call or not.

Bob Barr – Libertarian

C+ Has he really seen the light?

The newly crowned Libertarian nominee for president has improved by leaps and bounds from the man who voted for the 2002 resolution authorizing the Iraq War. Just a few years ago Barr, the former Republican representative from Georgia, was one of the biggest proponents of the War on Drugs – going so far as to refer to medicinal marijuana as “witchcraft.” Over the past few years Barr has reversed field on many issues (maybe it was after he met Borat). He now calls for an end to the War on Drugs, an end to the Iraq War, and a recall of all troops stationed in foreign countries. This embrace of a non-intervention, Constitutionally-bound foreign policy would normally bring a grade up to a Ron Paul-like level, but because Barr has made these changes so recently, one must still wait and see if his conversion is permanent.

Barack Obama – Democrat

D- Rhetoric is better, but mainly style over substance

He has gained some points for his opposition to the Iraq War, and his (oh, so controversial) contention that he would be willing to open diplomatic relations with nations that are hostile to the United States. While these are positive steps they are simply not enough. Obama has said nothing about bringing about a foreign policy that is within Constitutional limits. There has never been one word about whether a President Obama would feel the need to obtain a declaration of war from congress to undertake military operations (you know, that little Constitutional mandate that no one has felt the need to get since WWII). He has not said one word about closing down the useless, and costly, foreign military bases that lost all purpose at the end of the Cold War. While he may bring a better rhetorical game, his actual policy will be closer to more of the same.

John McCain – Republican

F Never met a war he didn’t like

He is currently labeled as a “warmonger” for his ardent support for the Iraq War and his contention that “There will be more wars, my friends, I’m sorry to say, there will be more wars.” Unfortunately, his foreign policy failings go far beyond that. He has proposed kicking Russia out of the G8, but has said the U.S. needs to work with Russia on nuclear proliferation. He has proposed a “League of Democracies” to unite democratic nations but has also claimed that alliances with authoritarian states such as Egypt, Saudi Arabia, and Pakistan must be strengthened to fight terrorism. His is a schizophrenic foreign policy based on nebulous ideas such as “greatness”, “victory”, and “freedom”. He subscribes to the belief that American hegemony is the best thing for the world. Believing in the inherent goodness of America is a good thing. Believing that the rest of the world will see that inherent goodness as a reason to accept American domination is a recipe for disaster.

TrackBack URI for this entry

Comments (0)

Subscribe to this comment's feed