Daniel Larison says he's not sure why I think it's
at all remarkable that Obama debated most foreign-policy issues on
Republican terms last night. Perhaps I gave too much peronal credit
to McCain, but I do think there is a very clear pattern that was
evident in last night's debate: Republicans "me too" Democrats on
domestic policy because they think they have to politically;
Democrats feel the same need to seem like watered-down Republicans
on national security.
Now, it's true that this predates the Obama-McCain race.
Although the Democratic brand on foreign policy is George McGovern,
the actual Democratic foreign policy establishment is more Joe
Biden -- softly neoconservative with some partisan bluster about
doing a better job and bringing more friends. But the Democratic
critique of the GOP on foreign policy began to harden with Howard
Dean and hardened considerably by the 2006 elections (though the
contrast even then was much clearer on Iraq than on Iran, Russia,
China, etc.). Democrats have mostly resumed the defensive crouch since being in
power. The Democrats never developed a clear response to Republican
arguments that the surge was an unambiguous success, they never
crafted a coherent alternative in dealing with Iran, and they don't
even have a language to talk about anti-terrorism efforts besides
shouting "Afghanistan," which was relevant in 2001-03 but is much
less so now. The biograpical differences between Obama and McCain,
and McCain's insistence on pressing them, gave this added emphasis
last night.
On economic policy, John McCain is running as Barack Obama
without the tax increases, earmarks, and universal health coverage.
On foreign policy, Barack Obama wants to be John McCain without
making anybody mad. It is very difficult to win a debate entirely
on your opponent's terms.
topics:
Foreign Policy, John McCain, Barack Obama, Earmarks, Iraq, Iran, Russia
