China, The Olympics, and Foreign Policy?

The Olympics in 2008 are going to be China's coming out party. What kind of role do you think that the Olympics are going play on foreign policy? Recently Steven Spielberg decided he was going to boycott the Olympics. Protests are breaking out in Tibet. Is the international community going to take notice? How is China going to react to these protests under international attention?

Hillary's vision

I would have to agree with all of you to a certain degree.

I think that Hillary has a great deal of practical experience and that her policy seems to be much more thought out then Barack's. In this way she seems like she would be the better president.

However, I also agree that Hillary has a tendency to come off as dis genuine and perhaps even speaks to what the people want to hear. This makes her much less likable next to Barack who exudes a great deal of honesty and devotion to his cause.

The reality is that the visions of these two candidates really aren't all that different. Their "policy" obviously is but their general goals (better lives for the middle class American worker) are extremely similar.

I guess my opinion is that I like both of their "visions" and that I would vote for Hillary's policy if I believed in her dedication to them. I won't disclose whether I personally do or don't.

Hillary Clinton's Vision for America

I disagree somewhat with Jessica's perspective of Hillary Clinton. I do believe she is unfairly treated by the media and improperly demonized by many Americans. However, I don't find her vision for American any more defined or realistic than Barack Obama's. I do not see Hillary's policies as better or more thought out. All policies I have seen discussed on the campaign by any candidate are vague and generalized. I have heard so many arguments for and against both sides by pundits and candidates alike. I don't think we can truly assign a label of soundness to any one candidate's policy proposals at this point. In any case, the actual policy outcomes will look nothing like what is being promised by the campaigns. To me, it is more about being able to bring about that policy change in general once is office. I believe either Hillary or Barack would be capable to doing so. Hillary has more experience, but I believe it takes more than experience. I have found myself increasing placing importance on more symbolic aspects of politics, what the candidates represent. Hillary Clinton represents the establishment. Unfortunately, she is highly divisive in American politics. When she speaks, too often do I see those traits come out. Barack Obama represents change and hope. Those are vague concepts that do not necessarily translate into effective politics, but they are important nonetheless. He is an amazing speaker that has proven his ability to appeal to people on all sides of the political spectrum. In the end, I see both as having sound policies and a clear vision for America, but the difference comes down to the symbolic. I feel Barack Obama represents the change that America so desperately needs in a way that Hillary Clinton does not. I know that many of you may not agree with me and I would be interested to know what you find to be the most important aspect of either candidate's vision for the country.

Hillary Clinton is America's New Vision

I am a fervent supporter of Hillary Clinton's in this epic race for the White House. Her vision for America has been smeared by the media and the ever present sound bites of our present day "news and entertainment" culture. While Barack Obama may be new and shiny, his vision is a bit hazy to me. I understand what he stands for- equality, hope and (the ever present) CHANGE, but what I don't understand is what does that look like in terms of policy. When Obama goes to Israel and attempts to hold peace talks with leaders there, how will they take hope, equality and change, and translate them into a feasible and well-thought out solution? Does change somehow find OsamaBinLaden? Does hoping for it, make the economy and the effects of home foreclosures miraculously better? Not that I know of. The one position I understand of his is his healthcare- and ironically it makes no sense to me. How are you helping the healthcare crisis faced by millions of uninsured people, by only extending benefits and assistance to children? Is that not directly setting them up for failure? How are these newly insured children going to be cared for by parents who can't care for themselves or get insurance coverage?
Hillary makes sense to me- she has plans. Her healthcare plan includes everyone that this system has forgotten about. Her negotiation skills in terms of reaching across the aisle and making nonpartisan changes for this country are well known around the Capitol. But politics aside- as a person, one I've met and have been inspired by, Hillary Clinton's intelligence is astonishing. She never has notes; she can think on her feet, make sense, and stay on message, without any outside assistance; she's courteous and caring; and she's the most competent woman, and if voting for incompetence has taught us anything over these last 8 years- it's that we can't afford to make any more mistakes.
I don't know about everyone else out there voting, and I don't pretend to, but I want the best person for the job in the White House as soon as possible. And as Sen. Debbie Stabenow said to me just last month- there are two amazing candidates for us to choose from, but it all comes down to what you know in your gut, and that's that Hillary Clinton- love her or hate her- is the best person for the job no matter what rhetoric she's up against.

Hillary's Vision for America

I had the rare opportunity to see Hillary Clinton speak on Monday. She was visiting GW to talk about foreign policy, and I attended her speech in the afternoon. While some people called her speech dull, I thought it was a glimpse of Hillary I had not seen as yet. None of the mudslinging so common in her campaign was present. Instead, Hillary focused on her vision for America. In her presidency, she fights for women's rights, punishes countries who harbor terrorists, mandates health care for all, and focuses on improving the lives of Americans as the tool to increased awareness of the US' international reputation and role.

At times, I found myself clapping to Hillary's words, caught up in the fervor of the audience. I am still, however, a supporter of Barack Obama. Which brings me to what is the most vital subject in the democratic debate - the vision for America. I support Barack because of his vision for America - one of hope, equality, and dignity, without mudslinging or "business as usual." I believe his vision represents what we hope America to be, not what it is.

The question is what is Hillary's vision for the future? And do we believe this vision represents what the American people want to see? I'm not completely sure I understand her vision - I believe she brings experience and the wisdom of the workings of the political process. Perhaps it's not that I don't understand her vision, but that I don't believe in it. Perhaps her vision is of a tougher America, more black and white, and less forgiving. But should that be our vision? I'm not so sure.

Immigration

I agree with you on the immigration point. I just had a conversation with a friend who stated that she was voting for McCain because of his immigration policy. This annoyed me. Not because I dislike that she is voting for McCain but because I think its a ridiculous issue to base your vote on. It just isn't that big of a problem, relatively speaking.

Re: Election Issues

While I believe that we spend more money on defense than is necessary or healthy for our democracy, it is not more than healthcare. 53% of our FY2008 budget was mandatory spending: entitlements like social security, medicare, medicaid etc. Defense is included in discretionary spending, and that took up 22% of the budget, which is about half of what we spend on social welfare. Nevertheless, I still feel this is an absurd amount to spend on defense. For instance, while I'm all about retaining our technological and qualitative edge over any foreseeable conventional opponent, we don't need to be spending billions on deck-mounted rail guns for the Navy (while I think that's awesome, there's other priorities the US government should have).This year the proposed defense budget is about 4% of our GDP, i think it was 700 billion or so, not counting specific costs for waging wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. I definitely feel that there are ways to slim the defense budget without compromising national security in the slightest, but that topic isn't relevant here.

The most import issue domestically for Americans this election is the economy, followed closely by immigration. I think that Lou Dobbs is an idiot, and that Mexicans aren't trying to destroy our way of life, and so immigration is not that big of a deal for me (it's still really important, I actually agreed w/Bush's plan). Civil rights is still a big one for me when it comes to liberties, unfortunately it's not a very big issue this election. When it comes to foreign affairs, nuclear proliferation is definitely a big one for me, as is handling Russia, China, and India. Also, I feel that the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is still very important, even though most people are numb to the whole process. The Israeli-Palestinian conflict is such a symbolic conflict that if it ends peacefully, our relations with much of the world will improve.

Election Issues

Lauren's question regarding the logic of spending so much on security over healthcare is an extremely important and prescient one. The debate between satisfying the needs of both the "welfare" and the "warfare" state has gone back decades and been fundamental to the national security debate since the days of Truman and Eisenhower when it started. The goal was always to find a balance and prevent the national security apparatus from overrunning the welfare state, but over the past 60 years, it seems rather clear to me which way that balance has shifted. That transition has spelled the end of many civilizations past, and there's no reason to believe that ours will be an exception if the trend continues.

That being said, in regards to the important election issues this year, I would say that the three most important issues facing America today, at least for domestic concerns, are education, healthcare, and the environment. I find it hard to rank them, and I could find arguments supporting any over the others. Does anyone find others more important, or have opinions as to which may be the most important? Also, with regard to foreign policy, aside from the obvious importance of the War in Iraq and the War on Terror, what international issues do you find most important?

Healthcare and Other 2008 Election Issues

For the past seven years, politics (and naturally, the federal budget) have revolved around foreign policy and domestic security. But you have to ask yourself -- does it make sense to spend billions to protect a country from nuclear or biological warfare if a considerable percentage of its population will die early from a lack of adequate health care?

I don't think so.

I think that the lack of health care is the largest domestic problem that our country faces today. Sarah and Anoop have already demonstrated the many complications present in our current system and I am personally thankful that so many of the candidates for the 2008 Presidential Election have made changing it an important part of their platform.

That being said, I am curious as to what other people think are the central issues in this election. Any opinions?

Healthcare

Anoop asks if healthcare is a right as a citizen and as a human. It's a tough question, especially because there is a difference between a citizen and a human. If the right of healthcare is only granted to citizens, then we bar an entire population of immigrants and residents from access to healthcare. At the same time, if it's a right as a human, does that mean that those who pay taxes to provide for a national healthcare system must also pay for those who don't, like illegal immigrants? These are just a few starting thoughts on the discussion.

Doctors, who needs them?

Is healthcare a right as a citizen, as a human, and along with that, who is responsible for providing that healthcare?

Need our help? Oh wait... you're different. Sorry we can't get involved.

With the Clinton crisis in Rwanda practically absent in the collective American imagination, it should be no surprise that America has three times taken a "just brush it under the rug" approach to first the events in Darfur and now the events unfolding in Chad. It is a pity and fills me with disgust that we have allowed the situation in Darfur to deteriorate and create a virus of violence that has now spread into surrounding countries. The events unfolding in Chad are difficult to understand as the information about which group is responsible for what seem to change every news cycle. But that's the way our foreign policy works in America- we go after things we see a profit in and if people are different or if we do not think we have anything to gain from our involvement, we choose to simply plug our ears and move on. Massive genocide, government instability, and international ignorance do not exactly work in America's favor at this particular juncture; however, as conflicts grow so does our ignorance and deniability. We refuse to acknowledge the facts of the matter, finding them too upsetting and confusing and in the end say that there was nothing we could do- we didn't even know what was going on.
I'm my opinion, granted I'm no national security expert, shame on us for not getting involved in efforts that actually merit our involvement and resources. There are instances in which we should leave better alone, but the incidents in Darfur and the crumbling government and rebellion happening in Chad now are situations that demand our and the international community's attention and assistance. Granted, there is always a chance when we get involved in countries with unstable governments that we could find our good will taken advantage of, and by no means should we go in brandishing our weapons in every foreign face, but America is full of smart people- people we pay to come up with plans on how to get in and our of situations just like this. And I, for one, think enough is enough; this country needs to re-prioritize and embrace the big picture. We cannot simply ignore situations that we don't see as directly involving us- because as the new Chad situation shows us, one country's issue can easily cross borders and effect others. Ignorance is not bliss- but instead body bags that pile up in foreign lands.

Obama's Iowa Win*

Ariana Huffington wrote in response to Barack Obama's win in Iowa, "tonight voters decided that they didn't want to look back. They wanted to look into the future." No matter what your political views or who you're voting for in 2008, Huffington makes a strong point. The United States is making a statement by voting for Obama, bigger than race and bigger than party identity. Americans voting for Obama are voting for a man that seems to represent change, a pulling back from the fear politics associated with the White House after 9/11. Obama represents the hope that all American share, a hope and ideal that the country was founded on: the pursuit of happiness. Americans have turned this famous phrase from the Declaration of Independence into a cause celebre, bringing America its reputation for a land where one can start over, where with hard work anyone can achieve their dreams. This is just the kind of promise Obama brings. For Americans, the Senator from Illinois harkens to the idea that the US is a profoundly unique country - one distinguished by its unfaltering hope that things can be better, that we, as a society, can be better. In a world where upholding the status quo and complacency have become good enough, Obama tells us that it's not, that perhaps things can be better.
As I discussed America's unique position in the world with my father, an immigrant from Pakistan, he said that for all we complain, America is a wonderful place to live. And I agree, because in America I can say with complete conviction that I want a better world, and a better America. Perhaps Barack Obama can bring that promise.
* The views expressed in this column reflect those of the writer only and not those of the Roosevelt Institution, its executive committee, or its members.