You will be hard pressed to find subjects on which Rev. Robertson and I agree. Even on the subject of this post, my agreement is less with what he said in early November to justify his endorsement of Rudy G., more with what he implied.
He said: “… the overriding issue before the American people is the defense of our population from the blood lust of Islamic terrorists” … other issues “pale into insignificance.”
Translation: Foreign policy is more important than culture policy as we consider the next U.S. President.
Granted, I’m not the first voter (nor will I be the last) to recognize that Robertson’s translated message is spot on. Yes, it’d be nice if the Reverend would tone down his rhetoric and dispense with his persistent, end-of-times madness. It would also be encouraging if his priority ranking of foreign policy led him to endorse a candidate other than Rudy G., i.e., someone (anyone) who would take us in a different direction than Bush/Cheney. But beyond all that, Robertson has a point.
The culture-war touchstones that Karl Rove used to sharpen the GOP’s campaign swords are increasingly yesterday’s news. America’s place in the world and how it relates to that world are the “it factors” that should (though I fear won’t) dominate our Presidential voting decisions.
Now, in agreeing with Robertson’s re-ordering of the universe, I want to be clear that I’m considering much more than Iraq. In fact, during the four-plus weeks since Robertson broke with the Christian Right to downplay the culture wars of the last 30 years, I’ve grown increasingly fixated on two, beyond-Iraq assumptions.
1. The social issues at the core of today’s culture wars will be moot within a generation. There are hints the tide is already turning and will continue to turn. Gen Y, my son’s generation, the first U.S. generation with a super-majority that’s effectively color-blind, seems to be equally open-minded on matters of choice, on whom we choose to love and when we choose to reproduce. If that’s true – if the enlightenment of our children has effectively decided these issues – then there’s little reason to continue fighting about them.
2. Foreign policy touches more topics and has more ramifications, near-term and long-term, than any other category of issues on the table in this election. The candidates’ beliefs about and approaches to foreign policy are not only central to the “obvious” issues (Iraq, war on terror, torture, etc.), they will also affect how the candidates view and respond to:
• Immigration
• Global warming – we can’t act alone; China, India, Russia, and others must contribute to any meaningful response
• Economy – oil imports, trade deficits, the slide of the dollar, exported jobs, open trade
• Healthcare – imported drugs, AIDS crisis in Africa, the threat of pandemics.
Unfortunately, despite the weight and scope of foreign policy, there are multiple signs that this “should-be it factor” will play a lesser role than warranted. Consider …
• In the presidential primary debates, both the professional and pedestrian question-askers continue to devote attention to time-wasting questions, from creationism to diamonds-and-pearls.
• Though Iraq is only one piece of the foreign-policy equation, it has been the central piece for so long that, with Iraq “exhaustion” now setting in, other foreign-policy issues may likewise be ignored or forgotten or shuffled to the side.
• The voters I speak with on a regular basis hint that, once they’re in the voting booth, they will resort to their old parochial ways, voting for the candidate who can best bribe them with perceived guarantees about their jobs, their mortgages, and their health insurance — regardless of that candidate’s positions on or recommended approach to foreign policy.
• Former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee — a charming fellow in many respects, but terribly un-credentialed on foreign policy — is the GOP’s new love. Why? In part because — despite Pat Robertson’s attempted shuffling of the deck of policy priorities — the rest of the Christian right is not quite ready to give up their blind allegiance to an outdated agenda.
• Even one of my favorite centrist groups, the Republican Leadership Council, continues to focus on social matters rather than foreign policy. Granted, the RLC’s near-term decision to re-build the party via local and state races argues against a global perspective. But with leaders like Danforth -– whose C.V. includes member of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, Presidential representative to the U.N., special envoy to Sudan, etc. -– you’d think the RLC would be more precise and more involved on foreign policy than passing references to terribly vague and clichéd phrases like “strong national defense” and “engaged foreign policy.” Maybe they’re assuming social moderates will naturally be foreign-policy moderates, although one look at Rudy G. proves that assumption dead wrong.
And so again, while foreign policy should be the principal decision-matrix in the next election, it very well may not be … unless, of course, those of us who recognize its importance argue for its rightful place, pervasively and consistently.
We must convince our families and colleagues that, more than anything else, we need an international statesman in the White House, someone who can deftly balance hard and soft power, strength and dialogue, in order to re-establish America’s credibility, its leadership, and its moral standing on this planet. As Rev. Robertson said: all other issues “pale into insignificance.”
Check it out:
Leading candidates’ foreign policy essays in Foreign Affairs.
“The world in their hands,” from The Economist, December 1, 2007.