The Forgotten Issue In Foreign Policy

The 2012 presidential campaign has now begun in earnest and the accompanying nonsensical charges have begun flying between the two principle candidates and their respective media flacks and political cronies.

The recent events surrounding the so called “blind dissident” in China should give all Americans pause and concern as the 2012 political theater traveling carnival show winds its way through America towards November.

It should be of concern to the American electorate, however, that the Republican Party seems to be ignoring what was once a fundamental political tenet.

To wit:

The criticisms of an incumbent administration stop at our shores; politicians used to stress that as a nation we spoke with a unified voice to the rest of the world.

It was akin to the popular commentary that ‘I can call him a bum, but don’t you dare try”.

The present day belief that it is more important to score nonsensical political points at the expense of the national good can be tracked back to the post 9/11 criticisms of President George W. Bush. In a cynical attempt to deflect the obvious cowardice of the Clinton administration in the aftermath of the al Qaeda attack on the active duty U.S.S.Cole, the despicable attacks began in earnest against President Bush, attempting to foist responsibility for missing the potential of the 9/11 attacks on the basis of of a briefing given the month prior.

Put aside the fact, again, that if one attacks and murders active duty military personnel serving aboard an active duty military vessel such action is as clear an act of war as is possible, the attempt to capitalize upon such actions for political advantage borders past the obscene and come dangerously close to treason.

The President of the United States is President of all the people and has access to information that those not in the office of the president  do not, and to attempt to comment on particular acts of foreign policy is an ignorant act. The Republican Party should and must explain their belief on the construct of a foreign policy, but that debate must end at criticizing that for which they by need and definition, do not have access.

The debate must be engendered, but must be done so intelligently. Those abroad who wish to do us harm to not see our political discourse as only the political theater it actually is, but rather is perceived as a nation in disarray, a nation weak, and ripe for terror.

There must be checks and balances in democratic self-rule, and our elected officials must be made to explain their policies and decisions made in our name, but it must be done with proper respect for both the office and the man.

Consider this theoretical option should the Madison Conservative find itself in a presidential debate and a question of foreign policy was proffered:

“A Madison Conservative administration would not engage in any military action that would result in American forces being utilized for nation building of any sort; such actions should be the realm of the United Nations. The Madison Conservative would focus our primary financial resources to retiring all foreign held debt so that we would, as a nation, be unencumbered by having our foreign policies managed by foreign purse strings”. It addresses the issues without devolving into absurd ad hominum attacks that do nothing but embolden our enemies.

America must never find itself in the position of accepting cheap political theatrics as harmless.