John McCain’s foreign policy positions have more insight
Foreign policy experience is a must-have for our next president. After the debacle known as Iraq and Bush’s miserable handling of foreign relations, it is an absolute necessity that the next president be able to earn back the respect America used to have as an international operative. However, it’s also important that the next president doesn’t pander to other nations to get that respect back.
On the Republican side of the fight, the two viable candidates left are Mitt Romney and John McCain. The two differ on almost every level.
Experience is where McCain outshines Romney. After 22 years in the Senate, he’s had substantial exposure to foreign policy issues.
Romney, on the other hand, has had little political exposure to the world outside of Utah and Massachusetts. He’s been quoted saying a president doesn’t need foreign policy experience — that’s what the State Department is for. To a certain extent, I suppose that’s true, but in an era when rebuilding our relationships with the rest of the world should be a primary goal, the more experience the future president has, the better.
Iraq policy is also going to be an important part of this campaign. The two candidates both agree that the United States can’t afford to leave Iraq. What differs between the two candidates is that McCain has a plan and Romney doesn’t.
Interestingly, Mitt Romney’s campaign Web site lacks a stance on Iraq. He instead lumps the Iraq problem in the same category as “radical Jihad,” which he plans to address by “call[ing] together our Middle East allies and the major nations of the developed world to establish a ‘Partnership for Progress and Prosperity.’” Sounds like a great plan to me.
McCain, on the other hand, has repeatedly articulated a very clear stance on our responsibilities to the Iraqi people and the Middle East. He has a five-point plan that includes continuing the development of a strong Iraqi security force, accelerating the economic reconstruction, leaving strong U.S. leadership in place long enough to address the issues facing Iraq, working with the international community to put pressure on Iran and Syria to stem the flow of Iraqi insurgents and foreign terrorists and working on the home front to get support for leaving Iraq better than it was before we invaded.
A final issue of importance is trade policy. Both candidates have strong stances on continuing free trade policies and strengthening the U.S. economy and work force to compete in a global economy. On this issue, the two candidates both offer strong, intelligent plans on keeping corporate taxes low, supporting worker retraining and attempting to encourage savings. This all works in the end to make sure the U.S. can continue to compete in the world.
All in all, the two candidates offer good conservative platforms for dealing with the rest of the world. McCain, with his experience, has elucidated intelligent, clear plans on all the relevant issues. Romney, however, only pays lip services to issues like “radical Jihad” and dismisses the importance of experience.
Shane Steinbauer is a columnist for The Nevada Sagebrush. He can be reached at editor@nevadasagebrush.com.
This entry was posted
on Monday, February 4th, 2008 at 10:42 pm and is filed under Perspectives.
You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed.
You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.
Print this post
Email this post© 2008 The Nevada Sagebrush
February 7th, 2008 at 12:23 pm
Well, I agree that Iraq was a debacle. I also agree that President George W. Bush hasn’t the slightest clue on how to handle foreign relations. However, thats were it stops. It is my opinion that the only way to bring about the change that this country needs is to elect a democrat. Yes, we totally screwed up in Iraq and we cannot leave it in shambles, but that does not mean that we should plan on staying there to baby-sit for the next ten years. I beleive that both Senator Obama and Clintons plans with regard to Iraq are our the best solutions. I hate to break it to you, but Iran and Syria aren’t really big fans of the U.S., and haven’t been for quite some time. I think that putting “pressure” on them will only result in them disliking us even more. Also, if we are so ignorant as to think that Iran and Syria will roll over and succumb to our pressures we have another thing coming. It is very well known that Senator John McCain has problems with his temper and controlling his emotions. Is that what we really want in a Commander-in-Chief? Its seems to me that the last time a president let his emotions take ahold of him we ended up in Iraq. If we let another overly-emotional president get us into a fight with Iran and Syria it will absolutely destroy this country. We cannot let it happen. This country needs a drastic change, and the only way to bring about the change this country so desperately needs is to elect a democrat to the White House.