1st Debate Reflections

I’ve compiled some reflections on a few key points from Friday night’s debate. I missed the first section on the economy so left that out. I will say that I really liked this debate and the nature of it. It is refreshing to have two candidates who, while they have different positions, have positions that one can present credible arguments for. We may still disagree, but at least we have something of substance to disagree about*. Also, it looks like I was wrong in my assessment of the debate. While many gave the result a tie, polls tended to show that most felt Obama won. As always, comments welcome.

The Iraq War
McCain’s position: don’t let our troops die in vain. While this oversimplifies it, it is the clear message of his bracelet story. I wish McCain would have made a stronger argument about the fact that whatever your opinion of the war, whether you think it was a good idea or not, is almost irrelevant when considering what to do today. It is undeniable that we have changed the face of Iraq and I think he’s right in saying we have a responsibility to get the job done. I think it’s a strength that he is willing to commit the necessary resources and troops, despite politics, to finish what we’ve started, to fix the mess we made. McCain argued for victory in Iraq both for the honor of America and those who served along with the idea that a stable Iraq is central to a peaceful Middle East. The argument to not let our troops die in vain has both strengths and weaknesses. While I think we all want victory (who wants to lose?), fighting for the honor of our troops can also be a very slippery slope. If this plan doesn’t succeed will even more troops be needed to not let these die in vain, how about after that, and after that, etc. Honor can become hubris and we will indeed end up in Iraq for 100 years**.

Obama’s position: don’t let anymore of our troops die. His bracelet story represents the other half of McCain’s. Again, his position is more complex than this, but I think Obama is right to hammer the poor judgment of the Iraq war in the first place. This argument also has strengths and weaknesses. Beginning with the latter, the original poor judgment in going to war in Iraq does not solve the current problem of being there and it is not that simple to simply leave. I think Obama could be stronger in making the case that it is time to leave and that leaving is not defeat. He also needs to deal with the question of what leaving would do to the Middle East, something I don’t think anyone can predict. However, I think the real strength of this argument is in regards to future judgments. Whatever successes the war in Iraq may be having now (something we should all be guarded about as they are indeed very fragile – so much so that no one knows if staying would even have a major impact on them) it is clear that the decision to go to war was made on false premises. It is clear that we (America) got this one wrong. I think Obama was far more reassuring that such a mistake (poor judgment if you like) won’t happen again.

Diplomatic talks without preconditions
I think McCain failed to convince people that Obama was parsing words on this one. Ultimately, McCain should have focused more on the arguments to have preconditions rather than not to, especially considering their track record. I think his argument that you legitimize a leader’s position when you talk to them is hog wash. If I talk to the KKK I'm not legitimizing racism or white power - talk about ridiculous. I think there are far stronger arguments for preconditions than that - increased leverage for example.

Obama made a strong case for the need to talks without preconditions, citing support for such talks from Kissinger and even Bush. I think he made the case that no preconditions does not mean no preparation and more importantly, that not talking to someone is not likely to get you anywhere. The strongest evidence is simply what has happened to Iran and North Korea. I think you could make this even stronger by simply thinking of how people tend to react when they are isolate or pushed into a corner – usually not very well.

Russia
I was surprised by both McCain and Obama’s stance towards Russia – very forceful and strong. I wonder why there was little talk about working with Russia and seeking to strengthen our relationship rather than defend our influence in the world. While neither was outright aggressive towards Russia, there were echoes of the Cold War. Did anyone else sense this? I hope I’m proven wrong on this and we hear about more ways to work with Russia in the future. I do think Russia is the sleeping giant. While communism may have led to the collapse of their economy, they still have a huge amount of resources and I think you’ll see a boom in Russia (if we haven’t already) similar to China once they get up and really running.

Israel
Both showed strong support, not much else.

Globalization
While neither candidate mentioned this word, at least not that I can remember, I thought Obama was the only candidate that seemed to grasp what this means in today’s world. I think Obama’s urge to restore America’s standing in the world is paramount. Perhaps 100 years ago, maybe even only 50 years ago, we could afford to say we’ll do whatever we want, we don’t care what you think. However, that is simply not true today. Just think of the financial meltdown. Nearly all of those companies were transnational. The amount of capital that flows between countries is astronomical and more and more companies are no longer located in only one nation. International treaties become the only effective tool to regulate such companies and thus relationships between countries is all the more important. When one considers national security and terrorism issues, the abilities for countries to work well with one another only furthers the need for America to be well respected in the world. This is not just some “feel good” message, it is essential for America’s future. I did not think McCain did a good job in showing that he understood the importance of relationships in today’s global world.

*Palin not included.
**One should also consider the history of Iraq. T.E. Lawrence, yes that’s Lawrence of Arabia, said that the public had been led, “into a trap from which it will be hard to escape with dignity and honor” regarding British control of Iraq. The British maintained their colonial rule of Iraq with intense brutality, in many ways the precursor of the Baath party and Saddam Hussein.