Thus the major dilemma for Democratic voters in 2016: Do they support Sanders, a guy whose positions are in line with the party’s mainstream, but who obviously has a fairly superficial, ideologically rigid engagement with foreign policy? Or do they support Clinton, who has a more powerful, detailed, and nuanced command of the issues than any other candidate, but is also far more hawkish than most Democrats?
Absolutely. And here’s the deal: what the dunces call “more hawkish” is simply more active. Ignorance paralyzes and makes people close their eyes and pretend nothing is happening and a few magic incantations will make all problems go away. Knowledge prepares people to act.
Hillary is not afraid to act because she understands the complexity of the situation. Next to her, the other two contenders looked like lost little boys. The problem is that, for most voters, it’s easier to identify with the lost boys than with a competent adult.
One thought on “Democratic Foreign Policy”
At this point it is obvious that Clinton is far ahead of Sanders (and anyone else) in her understanding of foreign policy. But still, I think she has to lay out clearly what comes next if she’s really pushing for ‘Assad must go’. What’s the plan here? I didn’t hear much of that from her last night.