Who’s More Realistic: McCain or Obama?

On the campaign trail, the debate over foreign policy has been muted of late. That might be because more important topics such as lipstick and hockey moms have taken center stage. But the contrasts between the presidential candidates also seem to have softened. Their differences over Iraq policy have shrunk as the place has stabilized somewhat and the Iraqi government looks for a timetable for a U.S. withdrawal. Both candidates oppose Iran’s nuclear ambitions and Russia’s incursion into Georgia. Both support a vigorous fight against the Taliban in Afghanistan and Pakistan.

Yet there’s clearly a fundamental difference between the two that might best be captured by asking a simple question: What kind of world do we live in? Neither candidate has been asked this, and I doubt either would answer as frankly as I am suggesting, but here’s my guess — drawn from their writings and speeches — about what each might say.

We live in a very dangerous world, John McCain would respond. In his eyes, Islamic extremism is the transcendent challenge of the age. Jihadist warriors — funded and supported by states that adhere to their views — pose the central threat to the United States. In the rise of China, Russia and India, McCain sees turbulence. Russia and China, being autocracies, represent a special danger. Moscow’s attack on Georgia was, for McCain, the “first serious crisis since the end of the Cold War.” The role for America, in such an environment, is to aggressively use its power — hard power — to defeat the enemy and spread freedom.

Barack Obama’s sense of the world is more optimistic. The dangers are real but not so all-encompassing. Obama speaks less of Islamic extremism in general and more of al-Qaeda and its affiliated groups specifically. He points out that compared with the Cold War — when thousands of Soviet nuclear missiles were pointed at American cities — we face lesser threats today. He argues that most people in the Islamic world want development and a better life, not jihad. America’s promise remains alive even in these
countries.

America’s role, for Obama, is to restore its military strength, fight al-Qaeda and its ilk, and deter rogue regimes such as Iran. But it is also to stay calm, because in overreacting to dangers, we often cause new problems and crises. To lump together all Islamist groups is to exaggerate and misunderstand the threat. The Iraq war, for Obama, is a prime example of an alarmist overreaction, one that led the United States to an unprovoked and hugely costly invasion and occupation. If America can keep its cool and provide the help that countries really seek — in development and democracy-building — we will gain in both security and legitimacy.

There is some truth to both visions, but in my view the reality is much closer to Obama’s — more so than most U.S. politicians seem willing to admit. We live in remarkably peaceful times. A University of Maryland study shows that deaths from wars of all kinds have been dropping dramatically for 20 years and are lower now than at any point in the past half century. A study from Simon Fraser University finds that casualties from terrorism have been steadily declining since Sept. 11, 2001. It is increasingly clear — look at their voting from Indonesia to Iraq to Pakistan — that very few Muslims anywhere support Islamic fundamentalists. More countries than ever before now embrace capitalism and democracy.

It’s also worth noting that since World War II, the United States has tended to make its strategic missteps by exaggerating dangers. During the 1950s, conservatives argued that Dwight Eisenhower was guilty of appeasement because he was willing to contain rather than roll back communism. The paranoia about communism helped fuel McCarthyism at home and support for dubious regimes abroad. John Kennedy chose to outflank Richard Nixon on the right by arguing that there was a dangerous missile gap between the Soviets and the United States (when in fact the United States had almost 20,000 missiles and the Soviets had fewer than 2,000). The 1970s brought a frenzied argument that the Soviet Union was surpassing the United States militarily and was about to “Finlandize” Europe. The reality, of course, was that when neoconservatives were arguing that the U.S.S.R. was about to conquer the world, it was on the verge of collapse.

Since the end of the Cold War, similar alarms have been sounded several times. In the 1990s, the Cox Commission argued that China was building a military to rival ours, citing numbers that soon proved to be bogus. Then there was Saddam Hussein, who was described as a powerful and imminent threat to the United States. In fact, the greatest problem we have faced in Iraq is its weakness, its utter dysfunction as a state and a nation.

Rhetoric about transcendent threats and mortal dangers grips the American imagination. But it also twists U.S. foreign policy in ways that can prove to be extremely costly to the country and the world.

[Enlarge] About The Author: Farid Zakaria is Newsweek’s International editor and PostGlobal co-moderator. Fareed Zakaria was named editor of Newsweek International in October 2000, overseeing all Newsweek’s editions abroad. The magazine reaches an audience of 24 million worldwide. He also writes a regular column for Newsweek, which also appears in Newsweek International and fortnightly in the Washington Post. Starting this year, Fareed has been hosting a new foreign affairs show on CNN Worldwide — Fareed Zakaria GPS, an hour-long program that takes a comprehensive look at foreign affairs and the policies shaping our world. Every week they bring you an in-depth interview with a world leader, as well as a panel of international analysts who examine the major global developments of the week. As always, Fareed’s emphasis is on new ideas and innovative approaches to solving the world’s toughest problems. Fareed Zakaria GPS airs each Sunday, at 1pm, on CNN.

Popularity: 3% [?]

Writes: Leonard Pitts Jr.

Of course, we all have questions for Sarah Palin:

Does she actually think living across the Bering Strait from Russia constitutes foreign policy expertise? Does she really take the parable of Adam and Eve as literal truth? How, exactly, does one field dress a moose? And why would one want to?

My first question, though, would not be one of those. I’d simply ask which books she wants to ban - and why.

Yes, there’s a list of titles floating around the Internet right now, but it’s a fake. It is, however, established fact that our would-be vice president has in the past tried to pull books off library shelves.

The New York Times reports that as a member of the City Council of Wasilla, Alaska, Palin complained to colleagues about a book called “Daddy’s Roommate,” described in promotional material as being “for and about the children of lesbian and gay parents.”

Laura Chase, who ran Palin’s campaign for mayor, explained that the book was harmless and suggested Palin read it.

Chase told the New York Times that Palin replied she “didn’t need to read that stuff. It was disturbing that someone would be willing to remove a book from the library and she didn’t even read it.”

Later, as mayor, Palin reportedly asked the town’s librarian three times whether she would agree to remove controversial books from the shelves. Three times, the librarian refused. Palin fired her, but eventually bowed to public pressure and gave the woman her job back.

“I’m still proud of Sarah,” said Chase, “but she scares the bejeebers out of me.”

Story continues below

And in that context, it seems apropos that next week is Banned Books Week. As you doubtless know, that’s the week set aside each year by the American Library Association to bring attention to attempts by some of us to regulate what others of us may read. The ALA’s Office for Intellectual Freedom reports that it has seen 9,700 “challenges” - a challenge is defined as a formal written request to remove a book from a library because the content offends or is deemed inappropriate - since 1990. Chillingly, the office suggests that’s probably an undercount. It says that for every challenge reported, four or five are not.

So Palin has company, to say the least.

Count among that number the woman from a Cuban exile group who bragged to a Miami Herald reporter how in 2006 she checked out and kept an elementary school library book she felt painted too rosy a picture of life on that Communist island. Like Palin, she thought she had good reason. Would-be book banners always do.

I’m reminded of how someone challenged me the other day on my contention that anti-intellectualism has overtaken this land. I mentioned by way of example Palin’s Bible literalism, but really, there’s so much more. There’s the “Jay Walking” segment on Leno. There’s this notion that “elite” is a four-letter word. There’s the White House’s censorship and politicization of science. There’s the recent survey that found that more people can name all five Simpsons than all five freedoms enumerated in the First Amendment.

And there’s this: as many as 50,000 incidents since 1990 in which a book was forced to justify its existence. We’re talking books like “The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn,” books like “The Color Purple,” books like “Harry Potter” and, yes, books like “Daddy’s Roommate,” books that offended because they expressed ideas that made someone uncomfortable. As if any other kind of idea was worth expressing.

We are becoming the stupid giant of planet Earth: richer than Midas, mightier than Thor, dumber than rocks. Which makes us a danger to the planet - and to ourselves. This country cannot continue to prosper and to embrace stupidity. The two are fundamentally incompatible.

So do us all a favor: Annoy Sarah Palin. For goodness’ sake, read.

[Enlarge] About The Author: Leonard Pitts, Jr. is a nationally-syndicated columnist and winner of the 2004 Pulitzer Prize for Commentary. He was originally hired by the Miami Herald to critique music, but within a few years he received his own column in which he dealt extensively with race, politics, and culture. He lives in Bowie, Maryland. He has won awards for his writing from the Society of Professional Journalists and the American Society of Newspaper Editors, and was first nominated for the Pulitzer Prize in 1993, eventually claiming the honor in 2004. He is also the author of the bestselling book Becoming Dad: Black Men and the Journey to Fatherhood. Pitts gained national recognition for his widely-circulated column of September 12, 2001, “We’ll Go Forward From This Moment,” in which he described the toughness of the American spirit even in the face of such a horrible attack. In June 2007, Pitts was the subject of a campaign of death threats and harassment by neo-Nazis angry at a column he wrote about two whites raped and murdered in Knoxville, Tennessee. In his column addressing the murders, Pitts stated “for the crackpots, incendiaries and flat-out racists who have chosen this tragedy upon which to take an obscene and ludicrous stand. I have four words for them and any other white Americans who feel themselves similarly victimized. Cry me a river.” More death threats were made in April 2008 before his appearance at the University of Puget Sound. | Read More About Leonard Pitts Jr. | Visit his website at www.leonardpittsjr.com.

Popularity: 3% [?]

Will someone please put Sarah Palin out of her agony? Is it too much to ask that she come to realize that she wants, in that wonderful phrase in American politics, “to spend more time with her family“? Having stayed in purdah for weeks, she finally agreed to a third interview. CBS’s Katie Couric questioned her in her trademark sympathetic style. It didn’t help. When asked how living in the state closest to Russia gave her foreign-policy experience, Palin responded thus:

“It’s very important when you consider even national-security issues with Russia as Putin rears his head and comes into the airspace of the United States of America. Where—where do they go? It’s Alaska. It’s just right over the border. It is from Alaska that we send those out to make sure that an eye is being kept on this very powerful nation, Russia, because they are right there. They are right next to—to our state.”

There is, of course, the sheer absurdity of the premise. Two weeks ago I flew to Tokyo, crossing over the North Pole. Does that make me an expert on Santa Claus? (Thanks, Jon Stewart.) But even beyond that, read the rest of her response. “It is from Alaska that we send out those …” What does this mean? This is not an isolated example. Palin has been given a set of talking points by campaign advisers, simple ideological mantras that she repeats and repeats as long as she can. (”We mustn’t blink.“) But if forced off those rehearsed lines, what she has to say is often, quite frankly, gibberish.

Couric asked her a smart question about the proposed $700 billion bailout of the American financial sector. It was designed to see if Palin understood that the problem in this crisis is that credit and liquidity in the financial system has dried up, and that that’s why, in the estimation of Treasury Secretary Hank Paulson and Fed chairman Ben Bernanke, the government needs to step in to buy up Wall Street’s most toxic liabilities. Here’s the entire exchange:

COURIC: Why isn’t it better, Governor Palin, to spend $700 billion helping middle-class families who are struggling with health care, housing, gas and groceries; allow them to spend more and put more money into the economy instead of helping these big financial institutions that played a role in creating this mess?

PALIN: That’s why I say I, like every American I’m speaking with, were ill about this position that we have been put in where it is the taxpayers looking to bail out. But ultimately, what the bailout does is help those who are concerned about the health-care reform that is needed to help shore up our economy, helping the—it’s got to be all about job creation, too, shoring up our economy and putting it back on the right track. So health-care reform and reducing taxes and reining in spending has got to accompany tax reductions and tax relief for Americans. And trade, we’ve got to see trade as opportunity, not as a competitive, scary thing. But one in five jobs being created in the trade sector today, we’ve got to look at that as more opportunity. All those things under the umbrella of job creation. This bailout is a part of that.

CNN’s Jack Cafferty: Sarah Palin Is NOT Qualified

This is nonsense—a vapid emptying out of every catchphrase about economics that came into her head. Some commentators, like CNN’s Campbell Brown, have argued that it’s sexist to keep Sarah Palin under wraps, as if she were a delicate flower who might wilt under the bright lights of the modern media. But the more Palin talks, the more we see that it may not be sexism but common sense that’s causing the McCain campaign to treat her like a time bomb.

Can we now admit the obvious? Sarah Palin is utterly unqualified to be vice president. She is a feisty, charismatic politician who has done some good things in Alaska. But she has never spent a day thinking about any important national or international issue, and this is a hell of a time to start. The next administration is going to face a set of challenges unlike any in recent memory. There is an ongoing military operation in Iraq that still costs $10 billion a month, a war against the Taliban in Afghanistan and Pakistan that is not going well and is not easily fixed. Iran, Russia and Venezuela present tough strategic challenges.

Domestically, the bailout and reform of the financial industry will take years and hundreds of billions of dollars. Health-care costs, unless curtailed, will bankrupt the federal government. Social Security, immigration, collapsing infrastructure and education are all going to get much worse if they are not handled soon.

And the American government is stretched to the limit. Between the Bush tax cuts, homeland-security needs, Iraq, Afghanistan and the bailout, the budget is looking bleak. Plus, within a few years, the retirement of the baby boomers begins with its massive and rising costs (in the trillions).

Obviously these are very serious challenges and constraints. In these times, for John McCain to have chosen this person to be his running mate is fundamentally irresponsible. McCain says that he always puts country first. In this important case, it is simply not true.

URL: http://www.newsweek.com/id/161204
From the magazine issue dated Oct 6, 2008

[Enlarge] About The Author: Farid Zakaria is Newsweek’s International editor and PostGlobal co-moderator. Fareed Zakaria was named editor of Newsweek International in October 2000, overseeing all Newsweek’s editions abroad. The magazine reaches an audience of 24 million worldwide. He also writes a regular column for Newsweek, which also appears in Newsweek International and fortnightly in the Washington Post. Starting this year, Fareed has been hosting a new foreign affairs show on CNN Worldwide — Fareed Zakaria GPS, an hour-long program that takes a comprehensive look at foreign affairs and the policies shaping our world. Every week they bring you an in-depth interview with a world leader, as well as a panel of international analysts who examine the major global developments of the week. As always, Fareed’s emphasis is on new ideas and innovative approaches to solving the world’s toughest problems. Fareed Zakaria GPS airs each Sunday, at 1pm, on CNN.

Popularity: 4% [?]

The more I get to know Sarah Palin (Via TV), the more I think McCain’s act of choosing a vice-presidential running mate, was like plucking a cheerleader out of dance routine — and rushing her to an OR to perform heart by-pass surgery on a dying patient.

How this lady became Governor beats me! What happened to the dictum — “Bad students finish last.”

Most politicians will lie, distort and embellish, but for Sarah its a different kind of lying — with a straight face, “Moose Eyes” and a smile.

Same lie(s) over and over!

This woman clearly has no idea what she’s talking about, but I have a strong feeling that — she thinks she knows!

After all, GOD IS ON HER SIDE! — Sealed and delivered by Kenyan “Evangelical Con-Man,” the “Bishop Witch-Doctor” of Kiambu, Kenya — Pastor Thomas Muthee.

What a comical embarrassment!

It is so incredible that Sarah still insists that Alaska’s proximity to Russia gives her sufficient foreign policy credentials.

Writing for Slate.com, Christopher Beam observes: In her first interview, with ABC’s Charlie Gibson, she blanked when asked about the Bush doctrine (and her unfamiliarity seemed to be with the phrase itself, not its meaning). Her sit-down with Fox’s Sean Hannity was convincingly compared to an infomercial. And in her latest face-to-face, with Katie Couric of CBS, she looked like a high-schooler trying to B.S. her way through a book report.

CBS Katie Couric Grills Sarah Palin

CNN’s Jack Cafferty: Sarah Palin Is NOT Qualified

There is a significant chance of Palin becoming president, due to the McCain’s age and history of Melanoma, and the thought of Sarah manning the “nuclear button” gives me the shivers.

Who would she turn to in case Vladimir Putin pointed one thousand nuclear tipped bombs at the United States — ready to shoot?

GOD?…..the Kenyan Witch-doctor?

Even more risky is the prospect that she would be vulnerable to manipulation by the power-hungry THUG Bush neo-cons currently hovering around McCain, — and have been instrumental in pushing clueless George Bush into the dustbins of history.

One blogger doesn’t mince his words:

After Palin’s first televised interview with ABC TV another blogger lamented:

LOL! ….I concur.

Sarah Palin is the biggest joke on America since George H. W. Bush elected to run with Indiana’s Dan Quayle in 1988.

————————————————————————

| Read: Top 10 Dumbest Sarah Palin Quotes — Idiotic Quotes by Republican Vice Presidential Candidate Sarah Palin |

————————————————————————

————————————————————————

Collectors Item — Dan Quayle Quotations

Popularity: 4% [?]

Limits of America’s Power — A Book Review By John Mulaa

Click here to read — More Reviews

Popularity: 4% [?]