Given the lobster-tank logic of presidential primaries, pizza tycoon Herman Cain's recent unexpected rise in the polls means his fellow candidates are likely to try to tear him down in the coming days, starting at tonight's debate. But it may be harder than one might think to catch Cain in any flubs resulting from his lack of foreign-policy background. Cain's strategy so far seems based on the reasonable premise that foreign policy is not a major factor in this election, so he just hits his talking points and then blows off more complicated questions. Take this recent example:
“When they ask me who’s the president of Ubeki-beki-beki-beki-stan-stan,
I’m gonna say, ‘You know, I don’t know, do you know?’ And then I’m
gonna say, ‘How’s that gonna create more jobs?’ I wanna focus on the top
priorities of this country. That’s what leaders do.”
CAIN: I just got back from China. Ever heard of the Great Wall of China? It looks pretty sturdy. And that sucker is real high. I think we can build one if we want to! We have put a man on the moon, we can build a fence! Now, my fence might be part Great Wall and part electrical technology…It will be a twenty foot wall, barbed wire, electrified on the top, and
on this side of the fence, I’ll have that moat that President Obama
talked about. And I would put those alligators in that moat!
Cain was asked what he’d give the Palestinian’s in a peace deal. He
replied, “Nothing. Because I’m not convinced that the Palestinians are
really interested in peace… if we look at history, it has been clear
that the Palestinians have always wanted to push Israelis and push
Israel for more and more and more.”
In an interview aired Sunday on ABC's "This Week," Cain said that
"some people would infuse Sharia law in our court system if we allow
it."
The issue, which makes many some Republicans cringe, has resurfaced
because New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie is mulling a presidential bid.
Earlier this year, Christie said he's sick of people talking about
Islamic law taking over the American justice system.
"I honestly believe that. So even if he calls me crazy, I am going to
make sure that they don't infuse it little by little by little," Cain
said. "It's not going to be some grand scheme, little by little. So I
don't mind if he calls me crazy."
Cain's rhetoric on China is also pretty blustery:
It would be naïve to think that China would not be tempted to flex
its worldly might if it were bigger than us economically and militarily.
And it would be equally naïve to think we could influence their actions
on currency or anything else with diplomacy or two verses of Kumbaya.
Appeasement is not a strategy. As Ronald Reagan proved, strength is thestrategy.
Both the Bush and Obama administrations have shown that appeasement
just buys the Chinese more time to talk until they can equal us in size
and might.
Our China strategy should be two simple words: Outgrow them![...]
We can outgrow China because the USA is not a loser nation. We just need a winner in the White House. It can happen in 2012.
The strategy for this growth, naturally, consists of slashing corporate and capital gains taxes.
When asked about what I would do about our involvement in the war in
Afghanistan during the debate, I answered by asking the questions that
should have been asked before we got involved many years ago. What is
our mission? How does it serve our interest? Is there a path to victory?
If not, then what is our exit strategy?
I ask these questions instead of “shooting from the lip” because
there is obviously a lot of classified information to which I do not
have access. There are dozens of experts and military leaders I would
need advice from before I could make an informed decision about a real,
clear plan for the USA’s involvement in Afghanistan. Similarly, a real,
clear strategy for every country with which we have relationships would be developed, regardless of whether or not we are involved in a military conflict.
To be clear, I want to be out of Afghanistan and all war-torn
countries as much as the next person. But I am not going to propose a
half-baked plan based on half the information I would need to make the
right decision, just to pretend I know everything.
I have some sympathy for this argument. The best foreign-policy presidents haven't necessarily been those with the most experience going in, and their positions are usually defined by their responses to crises anyway. However, it's a little odd when you consider the fact that his main criticism of Barack Obama's foreign policy is that the president takes too long to make decisions, that he dithered on the Arab Spring, that he "sat on the [Afghanistan] surge decision for months," even that he "jeopardized this latest mission to get bin Laden because he waited 16 hours to make the decision."
What Cain is essentially saying is that he's putting off decisions on vitally important topics about which he knows very little but that he'll make them really fast.
The only countries in the world that Cain seems to take any interest in are Israel and Chile, whose retirement system he has repeatedly praised. But I do still think it's unlikely that Cain will be caught in any Palin-esque moments where he appears out of his depth. Rather than fake knowledge about the world, he by and large simply expresses contempt for it. Sadly, this strategy seems to have been effective so far.
The two main false choice political parties in the US- the Democrats & Republicans- differ very little in foreign policy. The only person from either of these joker parties bucking the neo-colonial blowbak-laden Israel first foreign policy is Ron Paul.
Perhaps you devote the same amount of space doing an article on him. He's the real front runner for the GOP ticket. Of course, that would mean you are actually interested in the debate, rather than trying to make one of the false choices look bad.
I find it especially interesting that Daniel Drezner has a running conversation on his blog ridiculing the entire field of GOP candidates on their foreign policy views. He is entirely right, they are all a joke.
Except he completely ignores Ron Paul, whose realist and pragmatic views on foreign policy should find a welcome home on a website such as this, but are instead ignored.
Ron Paul says:
Treat Israel like all other countries (while reducing foreign aid to Israel potential adversaries.)
Remove permanent troop deployments spread across the globe.
Reduce military spending.
Don't even pretend attacking Iran is at all a good idea.
Stop overreaching to china.
Let Europe and Japan take care of themselves.
These are all mainstream views on this website, or at least hotly debated stances. Yet Paul is still ignored. We talk about America declining... perhaps is these "scholars" of IR put some thought and real analysis into their assessment of potential presidential candidates, instead of running the same old "lets bash on the GOP" gig that everyone seems to love. I'll be the first to agree that the (vast) majority of the GOP candidates are jokes, but ignoring Ron Paul when his views perfectly align with the clear pragmatic thinking that is so often praised on this site is doing the country a disservice, and shows a lack of journalistic integrity. If you don't agree with him, say it, but don't just ignore him.
First, Ron Paul will never win the nomination of this or any other Republican Party. He is not a "front runner." In fact, he's not a serious candidate at all... This is the product of delusion.
Second, Ron Paul is only tangentially in a major political party. Dr. Paul is a Libertarian, which is hardly a political party at all — it's a debating society for adolescent would be "objectivists," who fail to understand the obvious defects in an utterly self-centered view of the world.
If Libertarians have founded a contemporary society, it's Somalia.
PS. Ron Paul has several good ideas. As with all unserious political candidates, those ideas deserve to be poached by practical politicians.
A Federal Reserve stooge named Herman
Tried givin' American po' folk a sermon
"If you ain't rich
You must be a lazy bitch!"
He's about as subtle as General Sherman.
Now where does this Uncle Tom get the nerve
After working for the Federal Reserve,
The biggest thieves on the earth,
To question anyone's net worth
When unemployment's on an exponential curve?
Herman says "Lift yourself up by your laces!
There's plenty jobs around for all of the races!"
But where's the factories?
'Cause with Fed subsidies,
They all went overseas without leaving any traces!
But Herman's Fed prints trillions for the euro banks
Then hands the bill to taxpayers, without any thanks!
Man, it's as good as it can get
When you've got a license to counterfeit,
And now Herman wants to join the Presidential ranks!
Yes, this former pizza peddler named Cain
Says God told him to get in the campaign
With his 9-9-9 tax plan
But turn it over and scan
And the "Mark of the Beast" becomes plain!
When Herman's tax plan is laid on the table
It's apparent that it's a tax increase fable
It's austerity in disguise
Which Herman vehemently denies
But when asked to prove it, CAIN AIN"T ABLE!
___________________________
Charles Ulysses Feney
This view is based on the understanding that foreign affairs don't matter at all to American voters pondering their next presidents. The pundits jump up and down about it, the electors don't. Either way, no matter how much time and effort presidential candidates devote to studying foreign affairs, real learning comes from what happens after they enter the White House, and they have their noses rubbed in the fact they really don't rule the world, after all. .
We've reinforced free speech and equal opportunity for anyone to hold office, and props to him for being a self-made man - but that's quite enough in this case. I suspect the sideshow will run its course in a timely manner, in any case, but as far action is required - just a big collective NO, please
Maybe Herman Cain knows nothing about foreign policy. If true, he shares this quality with the majority of American politicians and political professors. This magazine also belongs to same category and knows nothing about foreigners and their motivations.
Having said that, I must add that when Cain talks you hear quite logical and reasonable arguments. This guy baked lots of pizzas so he is result oriented. On the other hand, while reading Keating you are baffled by stream of nonsense devoid of any logical links. I bet, Keating made nothing useful in his entire life. No pizza, not even a baked potato. Just like Obama when he became our President from useless senator transferred to that position from quintessential "community organizer". Since that Obama has not resisted to killing Bin Laden and Awlaki, which were good deeds. But he committed so many idiotic blunders on far larger scale that even Carter looks like a Talleyrand or Metternich comparing with our Barack.
I like Herman Cain, Mr. Keating. And I know something about the foreigners and their state of mind.
Very few US presidents come to the office with significant foreign policy experience. Eisenhower, Nixon and Bush the elder were the three big exceptions within living memory, and their experience did help them to be exceptionally effective in the foreign policy realm. Of course, none of them were elected solely, or even mainly, due to their foreign policy experience. They were elected because the voters thought they were a better leader than the other candidate.
Lack of foreign policy experience is a handicap that can be overcome, but appointment of a very strong foreign policy team - and then actually following their advice - is crucial. Even then, there is a significant risk of a major goof. Consider: Truman (Korea); Kennedy (Bay of Pigs/Vienna); LBJ (Vietnam); Carter (Iran); Reagan (Iran/Contra); Clinton (Somalia and Al Qeada/Sudan); Bush the younger (Iraq & Afghanistan).
In the case of candidates lacking much foreign policy experience, then, the two things I most want to know about them: 1) Are they prudent and cautious in their decision making; and 2) Do they know how to find and surround themselves with good advisors?
I don't know to what extent such thinking weighs in the minds of other voters, but it should. The jury is still out when it comes to how the GOP eight measure up to this criteria. We may not find out what any of them think about the president of Uzbekistan, but for the sake of our country I do hope we find out where they stand on these two critical things.
Your post is no match for the article. You should not be writing here. Don't you realize, Mr.Keating's blog is nothing but conceited and ignorant rant? Your best efforts would not bring your ideas down entirely to the level of Keating production. You can write volumes filled with historical parallels and anecdotes, but how can you make Keating to agree that Obama had had no experience at all prior to inauguration?! Nothing. Neither foreign nor domestic. Period.
"CAIN: I just got back from China. Ever heard of the Great Wall of China? It looks pretty sturdy. And that sucker is real high. I think we can build one if we want to! We have put a man on the moon, we can build a fence! Now, my fence might be part Great Wall and part electrical technology…It will be a twenty foot wall, barbed wire, electrified on the top, and on this side of the fence, I’ll have that moat that President Obama talked about. And I would put those alligators in that moat!"
The man not only doesn't know anything. He doesn't learn anything.
He went all the way to China yet failed to learn that that Great Wall failed to keep the mongol hoards out of China.
In Xanadu did Kubla Khan
A stately pleasure-dome decree :
Where Alph, the sacred river, ran
Through caverns measureless to man
Lack of foreign policy experience is a handicap that can be overcome, but appointment of a very strong foreign policy team - and then diy home ideas actually following their advice - is crucial. Even then, there is a significant risk of a major goof. Consider: Truman (Korea); Kennedy (Bay of Pigs/Vienna); LBJ (Vietnam); Carter (Iran); Reagan (Iran/Contra); Clinton (Somalia and Al Qeada/Sudan); Bush the younger (Iraq & Afghanistan).
Passport, FP’s flagship blog, brings you news and hidden angles on the biggest stories of the day, as well as insights and under-the-radar gems from around the world.
Read More
(12)
HIDE COMMENTS LOGIN OR REGISTER REPORT ABUSE