Superman Audition vs. PanderFest

Superman Audition vs. PanderFest.  After watching the last Republican and Democrat debates, I am left with an empty feeling.  With all the problems this nation and the world face, it is rather dismaying to see that our next President will likely come from this bunch.  I can best describe the Republican debate as auditions for Superman, while the Democrats engaged in a PanderFest.

Over the last two decades, there has been so much American blood spilled into the sands of the Middle East that any candidate who advocates a hawkish (granted; that is a relative term) foreign policy should have to be forced to meet with no fewer than 25 families orphaned in some way by a Middle East combat death and, in addition, meet some of the boxes coming home from the Middle East with our most precious resources contained therein.  With all of the Republican chest-thumping that was taking place, I expected someone to rip their shirt open in a mad rage and expose a big “S”.  This rushing to convince the electorate of exactly how tough you are and how you won’t let America be pushed around has gotten completely out of hand.  While Obama’s facile foreign policy of “leading from behind” has been exposed for the shallow, weak failure that it is; it has also demonstrated to anyone paying attention that the United States of America’s role on this planet has clearly evolved.  Although we remain the most powerful military force in the world, the complexities and consequences of using that power has severely diminished its utility.  That power, while still in existence, now requires an equal amount of judicious application combined with a heavy dose of unequivocal, simple, and consistent messaging about the principles that America stands for and when we will choose to apply that power.  If Obama has demonstrated nothing else, he has shown the peril in leaving a leadership vacuum in world opinion.  While the eyes of the world were focused on him in his role as America’s leader, his eyes were focused on the mirror in self-admiration.  That failure to step up and assume the pre-imminent position in the quest for freedom and decency in this world has been largely responsible for the mayhem and chaos we now see on a global scale.  Republicans would be well served to contrast themselves less with the vapid and lame military leadership of Obama and focus instead on exactly how they would marshal the overwhelming military force of the United States to try and restore some order to this world.  For all of his failures, I will grudgingly concede to Obama that he is dead-on when he says that we cannot be the world’s policeman and we should not engage in nation building.  Unfortunately, he fails to grasp that walking away from these aspects of foreign policy alone will not result in a betterment of the world order.  You must still lead in a principled and strong fashion; a task at which he has been an utter failure.  As far as the Republicans are concerned, I would like to see more emphasis on the world leadership part (an area where they are deficient) and less emphasis on the military application part (an area where they are excessive).  America must be strong and we must maintain our position as the unchallenged military presence in the world; and, on rare and select occasions, we must apply that capability to achieve well-defined goals of principle and self-interest.  But we must also understand that we can no longer just wave an AK and expect the world to quake.  There is a complex and diverse mix of nations, leaders, and agendas that will continue to increase the difficulty and importance of our President’s voice being one that is reasoned, deliberate, and respected.

The Democratic Party that I grew up with has got to be rolling over in its grave after witnessing the ongoing debate between the Democratic contenders.  It is in the grave for certain.  Seven plus years ago, I thought that surely there remained some remnants of that old belief system and that given time and sufficient provocation by this president, they would raise their voices and attempt to swing their party back towards a left-center bearing.  Alas, those voices were never raised and Rome burned while they fiddled.  The three Democrats that we are left with from which to select a presidential nominee are good, better, and best socialists.  Hillary has totally disregarded the very essence that made her husband a successful President by tacking ever more to the left; essentially abandoning any semblance of pragmatism and compromise.  At first I thought this was simply a ploy to secure the nomination and once achieved, she would tack back a bit to the right.  However, upon examining her lifelong resume and record, I tend now to think that perhaps we are seeing Hillary unchained.  She is a very liberal politician, has always been so, and if she wins, will no doubt serve as such.  O’Malley has never made any pretense to being anything but far left and he is damned proud of it; he is very comfortable in his liberal skin.  Sanders is exactly what he and everyone else says he is; a socialist.  He is anathema to everything this nation was conceived as, stands on today (unsteadily), and hopes to be in the future.  His continuing strength in this primary race, be that as it may be, is an incredible indictment of Hillary and her weak standing among Democratic voters.  All three of these candidates have been, and continue to be, engaged in a contest to give away as much stuff from the government as possible.  Plain and simply, they are trying to buy their way into the White House with yours and mine tax dollars.  I cannot detect one bit of caution or restraint in anything they say or promise and they are oblivious to any notion of fiscal restraint.  If the Republicans are chest-thumping, the Democrats are wallet-pumping.  Collectively, the Democratic nominees’ willingness to promise everything to everyone and mortgage the future of our children on their generosity is breath-taking.