Any of the candidates has to be aware of the fact they would be inheriting an incredible mess… very much the opposite of the state of the union that was inherited in 2000. The obvious moral is that’s it’s a hell of a lot easier to screw things up than it is to run them efficiently.

Foreign policy has always been important, at least in my lifetime, and it will continue to be a priority. But we will continue to neglect environmental issues are our peril. Access to affordable healthcare for all Americans has also been neglected for too long. There is lots of work to be done, and much ground to be made up for.

The Washington Post link you provide to document “the tide is turning” doesn’t seem to prove your point about attitudes changing re. “on whom we choose to love and when we choose to reproduce.” Here’s a link that appears to do better on the first score. I couldn’t find recent data on the abortion issue, but the Guttmacher Institute has shown that between 1988 and 1995, young male approval of abortion declined.

Interesting post, but I wonder if something trending in a certain direction means that it inevitably will keep trending in that direction? If anything, American history shows that waves of religious awakening profoundly influence the course of public events, as evidenced by abolitionism that grew out of the religious fervor in early to mid 19th century America. The swinging of the pendulum might be a more apt analogy.

1) Even if today’s youth are trending away from anti-choicism and homophobia, we can expect that to be met with a furious rear-guard reaction by Robetson and his cohorts. There hasn’t been a big breakthrough on the gay rights front since the Massachusetts gay marriage decision, but it’s coming. See if these issues don’t jump to the top of the ledger when the first state legalizes gay marriage democratically.

2) For every social issue that is fading, we still have plenty that seem to be rising in salience. Church/state, immigration, and to a large extent race seem to be growing in significance. The “color-blindness” of this generation isn’t necessarily a recipe for racial comity — rather, I predict that racial discourse in this country will move around Charles Taylor’s “politics of recognition”, where people want their identity (racial, sexual, religious, and otherwise) to be known and respected by their cohorts (see my Racism as Subjectification paper).

3) As I wrote in my most recent post, the war on terror isn’t going to make the cultural issues fade away, it’s just going to change their framing. Torture is, in my opinion, a “cultural” issue, but one that is being debated within the framework of our national security commitments. The Nativism on the immigration front is also being reflected towards a general distrust towards outsiders. Even more “classic” social issues, like women’s rights, are currently being debated through the lens of Muslim nations whose policies on the subject make a significant portion of our “clash of civilizations” rhetoric.

arrive at a much different conclusion than he does

That was my point.

I am not neglecting Iraq, nor other foreign issues, including the need to improve our intelligence service (and then to use it rather than act largely independently when deciding to go to war somewhere), but domestic issues are important, more important to many people than what happens elsewhere. Certainly people will want to see more being done for health care here in this country before rushing to spend more huge sums of money elsewhere, to name an easy-to-name example.

I couldn’t agree more that we need a statesman, one who understands the difference between talking to others and talking at them.
We can’t do it all alone, so regaining our creditbilty
and due respect is of utmost importance.

Running down the list of other priority issues (was Afghanistan mentioned?) I can’t help but feel sorry for the next president, whoever that will turn out to be. I don;t know if ever a new president has had such a full plate waiting for him/her.
And in the midst of such an awful political climate, too. I hope there is at least a brief honeymoon period before the fighting resumes.

This is specific, not general; it is not a general foreign-policy statement.

You’re correct. And that’s why I wrote that Robertson is almost right; that’s also why I emphasized the underlying premise of his statement, namely that foreign affairs are predominant vs. domestic affairs in the context of the 2008 elections. Granted, taking that general cue on which I agree with Rev. Pat, I arrive at a much different conclusion than he does, but I still believe the underlying premise is a good one: If we vote on domestic issues first, we fail to recognize the most critical role of the White House from Jan. 2009 to Dec. 2012.

“Domestic and social issues have not become irrelevent … “

I’m not saying they have; I’m saying they’re less important than foreign policy issues in the 2008 election for President, for the reasons listed in the post. I’m also predicting that certain social issues (abortion and gay marriage) will be effectively decided within a generation. That’s still up to 20 years off.

overriding issue before the American people is the defense of our population from the blood lust of Islamic terrorists

This is specific, not general; it is not a general foreign-policy statement. It does not call for less confrontation with our enemies, but more; it does not call for unrelated activities that have tenuous connections at best such as alternative energy development, foreign aid, etc.