Bayonets and Bellicosity

In a debate held under the auspices of foreign policy, we spent 90 minutes discussing the domestic economy. The problems with that are many fold. It exposed and seemed to validate the belief that Americans are both disinterested in the world and woefully uninformed about the issues that matter on a global scale. As a member of the global community, the issues of foreign policy are not just social issues. They are economic, impacting American families and American lives in more precise terms than the abstracts they present.  So why don’t we Americans get that? Why is it from pre-K to the Presidency we focus on ourselves without an understanding of what connects us to others?
My questions are not meant to sound like fortune cookies. They are real concerns that determine our economic future. There is an intricate connection between the world’s economy and our own. Some of our largest debt holders are overseas, capable of, though to their own financial peril, calling our loans at any time. Our solvency as a nation requires that our production capabilities and exports increase and our consumption of domestic goods increase. In simple terms need to make more, sell more of it overseas and as consumers buy more domestically made products. To pretend that profound shift in our consumerism would not spook global markets and have far-reaching impact is naïve.
The fact is that for most Americans and at times myself included, much of this is at best gibberish and at worst is flying over our heads without a real understanding of what it means. A Master’s in Political Journalism, a Doctorate in Economics and a JD in Tax and Corporate law and Trade Regulations to figure it all out on your own. Though we have access to the internet, figuring out the impact of policy has limits. So citizens are left to rely on a process for dissemination mired in pandering that clarifies little. We call it debate. I call it interrogating a stump speech.
If this debate was to discuss China, and more specifically regulating China, our dependence on them for cheap labor would be part of the conversation. I wildly tweeted #Sensata, but it went all but unmentioned.  There was that 2 second response from the POTUS “you know how to ship jobs to China” and then it was over. Instead of issuing real policy differences, Candidate Romney got fireplace on a snow day cozy with almost all President Obama’s policies leaving me screeching at my television and wondering did I miss the debate. I recognize that like any good fighter if you know you have a soft left parry to the right as often as you can, but this, this was ridiculous.
For the President’s part, though he came out guns blazing and clearly, made the difference glaring, he did little to corral the conversation toward foreign policy either. I’m willing to give him the benefit of the doubt, even say that he was simply responding to the accusations of Gov. Romney. There was a clearly missed opportunity to explain to the American people the importance of having a strong multi-level approach. Both to our allies and our enemies to ensure we remain a global leader. President Obama tossed one into the fray.  I’m unsure of how clear it was to those who do not usually follow politics to walk away understanding.
The debate spent most of its time and energy shamelessly pandering to voters that each candidate seems to believe vote in monolithic unity, Women, then Jews, then Ohioans. Noticeably absent was immigration, which has an impact on foreign policy, but I digress. What we did not hear was a clear answer to a single question. Perhaps we could discuss what would happen if Nations, whose interests are not American interests, suddenly decided to issue trade embargoes on us? We should discuss debt reduction as a foreign policy issue, but then we’d all be Ron Paul supporters. Perhaps, someone could explain to Governor Romney, that global strength is not warmongering. Otherwise, Ahmadinejad would be the supreme commander of everything.
The facts are simply that debates as a whole do little other than rouse the base and give us a “good fight” to watch. If I pretend to think as an undecided voter, I’m left wondering “what was I supposed to walk away from this with?” It leaves people to make gut decisions about highly sensitive issues. If you are not a journalist, blogger or party faithful, was it enough to sway you in either direction? Sadly I doubt it. I do not like Romney for the Presidency. I knew that walking in. In the end, the only reason the first debate mattered is that people who wanted justification to vote for Romney found it, whether or not that is enough to win an election is anyone’s guess.
My hope is that people decide that TV ads and talk radio are not enough to base your decision. That they take to the internet, to chat rooms to anywhere to find out a little more from both sides of the discussion. They ignore the barrage of misinformation and find a credible source. My hope is that they weigh the message and messenger and that their litmus for leadership is integrity and character, not spin and suppression. I believe that we should re-elect our President. I believe that process requires time and microwave solutions do not work. I believe the opportunity has come to redefine American as globally compassionate, fiscally responsible and morally sound,  morality based in fairness and not imposing our personal judgments.  I believe that we are better than zingers and xenophobia, bayonets or bellicosity. We must refuse to accept inequality and discrimination. We must decide that we are better than our history. Better than our fears. Better than our own agendas. We must be as good as the lives sacrificed to create this remarkable social experiment we call our country. We are Americans, and we are better than that.