There are a great number of issues being debated in the 2016 elections. As candidates duke it out over their party’s nomination, a subject of repeated inquiry has been foreign policy, and with good reason: absolutely no candidate on either side of the aisle has a great foreign policy position. It’s not a Republican or Democratic problem. It’s an American one.
I’m not going to waste a lot of keystrokes on the Republican side of the equation. Any of them would have a catastrophic impact on global and national security with their chest beating, xenophobia, racism, and hawkish demeanor. They’re all to happy to send our loved ones overseas to die in the name of ego. They’re already making the world a more dangerous place. Case in point: the front runner is currently featuring in terrorist recruitment videos.
But the Democrats don’t get a pass on this subject, either. Both Sanders and Clinton are problematic in their approach to foreign policy, and giving them a pass in the name of bolstering our candidate of choice is not going to help things.
Foreign policy has long been a weak spot for Sanders. Some argue it’s a function of experience. After all, while he’s not without depth on issues of foreign policy, Clinton’s got him beat by a mile when it comes to bona fides.
And his answers on foreign policy? Not fantastic to date. Some have speculated that this is due to the Clinton machine cutting off his access to credible and experienced foreign policy advisers, and are quick to insist that he’ll have strong advisers once he’s in the White House to guide him to the right answers. Unfortunately, from a strategic perspective, that’s not a great defense. After all, Clinton’s argument is that she’ll be stronger on foreign policy out of the gates, and if Sanders needs time with advisers to get on her level, that’s not going to cut against her assertions.
The notes he does hit aren’t awful, but they aren’t deep, either. We war too much, we spend too much, we should rely on other actors to handle issues within their region, and — over and over and over again — that vote against the war in Iraq. These arguments aren’t fundamentally awful, but he’s less progressive than many think.
At every turn, Sanders has supported President Obama’s military proposals: from voting to fuel Israel’s ongoing human rights abuses against Palestine to supporting ongoing drone warfare. While one can argue that taking a firm stance on these issues is not tenable in the given political climate, these positions also cut against the idea that Sanders will not be business as usual. On the subject where he has perhaps the greatest influence once in the White House, Sanders offers more of the same.
But if you think Clinton is untouchable on this subject, you couldn’t be more wrong. Sanders would likely continue to support the foreign policy seen under the Obama administration, but Clinton is a sure thing. Yes, she is experienced, but her experience reveals a candidate who is even more hawkish than Obama. More than once, she was the one at the table pushing for Obama to more aggressively intervene in crises in Syria, Libya, and Iraq, favoring more on the ground efforts and a ramp up of drone activity. She’s also spoken more than once about a desire to provide Israel with even more firepower. When it comes to potential conflict down the road, she’s all too willing to go to war. In her own words, she “will not hesitate to take military action.”
And let’s not forget who she’s turning to for advice on foreign policy: Henry Kissinger. I’m not just talking about the praise she heaped on during a review of his book. She not only looked up to his example while shaping her own views on foreign policy, but turned to him for counsel on her decisions, occasionally asking him to present his case to the Obama.
Why is it a problem that one secretary of state turn to a former secretary of state for guidance? Because Kissinger is a fucking monster. A decorated war criminal. A man who referred to bombing as a form of diplomacy. A twisted nationalist whose advocacy and efforts gave rise to some of the most terrifying political regimes in the world. He’s a stain on American history, and often regarded as the father of the sprawling beast that represents American foreign policy today, in all its messed up glory. Know who else thinks he’s swell? That would be Ted Cruz. Not great company for Clinton.
If, in Clinton’s judgment, Kissinger is an admirable man and trusted adviser, her judgment is absolute shit. Point blank.
But Kissinger didn’t get us to this point on his own. His ascent and the continuation of his philosophy in American foreign policy was fueled by the electorate’s general ignorance of global politics and cultural differences. When the public accepts “America is the best!” as a justification for hawkish foreign policy, those pushing it get their way.
And that’s why we’re looking at a presidential field today whose foreign policy is discombobulated at best and downright dangerous at worst. Until we start prioritizing global affairs literacy and history lessons outside the tint of American exceptionalism colored glasses, we won’t get the leadership on this subject we need… but we’ll certainly get what we deserve.