When it comes to foreign policy, Clinton. I disagree with aspects of her domestic policies, however.
Youâre an arrogant blowhard. You huff and you puff and then you run away when someone actually has an articulated argument. We have seen it time and time again in PWI. Civil discussion isnât something youâre interested in unless youâre in an echo chamber. Youâre content to sling ad hominems. Iâm not interested in the intellectual abyss that is Pushharder.
1 Like
I find these generally agreeable, but like many things, itâs a matter of degree and we canât ignore hard experience. The Democracy Promotion experiment, for example, has to be limited, and requires looking through realist eyes. Fact is most countries donât have the preconditions to democracy and we canât create them no matter how much blood and treasure we expend (or think tank seminars, for that matter).
The same is true of trade. The notion that free trade will always decrease animosities among trading nations is naive and refuted by history. It assumes countries are motivated by materialist interests above all - and nations certainly are not. Which is not to say I favor protectionism or dislike trade - but it should serve our national interests and we should be much more selective about with whom we trade.
That said, in keeping with this thread, Trump hits some good notes on challenging foreign policy conventional wisdom and highlighting a need to re-orient our foreign policy to one that is skeptical enough about our international relationships to avoid âentangling alliancesâ - but those notes are more accidental, as he is going off nothing more than a nativistic grudge and an idea that foreign governments are like reality television participants he can boss around.
Trump would be far worse than even Obama in foreign policy.
Cruz? I have no idea, and I donât think anyone else really does either. He tries to talk really tough on terror, etc., but it looks like total overcompensation for being an egghead. The cartoon I have in my head is high school with Cruz trying rattle off quotes of Bastiat and Mises in confronting Putin while Putin takes his lunch money and shoves Cruz in a locker. Foreign policy is about theory and grand strategy, yes, but is still basic human relations. And Cruz - as bad as he is at basic human relations - projects as a bookish wimp. Wimps invite aggression - ask Obama.
Rather wimpish actions invite aggression.
Is your support for her out of desperation, for lack of better candidate, or do you truly believe in her abilities?
I donât remember writing in support of Johnson, but I may have, as I liked what he did as governor of New Mexico. Once he went full libertarian (and backed Ron Paul), I had no interest in him as a candidate at any level.
I definitely supported Huntsman. He had the foreign policy chops to be taken seriously by foreign leaders and had a tremendous record of getting things done in public service (see his tenure as governor of Utah).
The latter. She has also assembled an unparalleled team of FP advisors.
Itâs something bigger than cosmetics or demeanor, though Iâd disagree that Cruz and Huntsman come off as similar (Huntsman looks lean and coiffed like a Kennedy, Cruz looks squinty and doughy). I think that stuff matters at a gut level, though I think it can be overstated.
Cruz - in my view, based on the debates and other clips - doesnât project as someone people want to follow or as the Guy You Canât Ignore In The Room. He simply lacks these qualities, doesnât have the gravitas. Heâs just not someone who demonstrates a sense of command.
Others may disagree, and that is fine. But leadership is something you have or you donât, and I donât think he has it very much. This is a magnified problem for him because he is a hard-right ideologue that wonât appeal to independents in a general election on policy grounds, and he needs something else to sell them. He doesnât have anything.
No, itâs really based on an assumption of what independents are not, as opposed to what they are - and they are not hardcore libertarians or hard-right anti-government types.
I think many of them are libertarian-ish, under the old formulation - socially liberal, fiscally conservative, but not interested in setting fire to the government to make it 18th century size. Cruzâs radical nostalgia wonât sell with that group.
1 Like
The force of copy and paste is quite strong with him.
When one tries to sound intelligent, the exact opposite is typically the result.
How about 1990âs size? Iâm not sure you realize how much the government has grown even since then.
Sure, thatâs fine. Can you point me to a âconstitutional conservativeâ arguing thatâs what we should do?
Whew,
Did not easily find a similar aggregate of state/local spending but Iâm guessing it hasnât moved downward.
They really arenât, though, because reliable Trump voters are not reliable GOP voters. Thereâs no reason to think theyâll shift their allegiance to Cruz (or any non-Trump nominee) if Trump doesnât get the nod.