Monthly Archives: October 2012

Clooney’s “Ides of March” Critique

Posted on by
Reply

George Clooney’s “The Ides of March” is a political drama, a movie with insights into the behind-the-scenes conduct of campaigns, the ‘dirty’ nature of politics and politicking, and the intrapersonal struggles between optimistic idealism and realistic cynicism experienced by those who work in them. The movie takes place during the Democratic Ohio Primary, where Stephen Meyers is working as junior campaign manager for Pennsylvania Governor Mike Morris. During the events of the movie, Meyers’s idealistic optimism about Morris and his own role in politics is shattered when he is terminated from the Morris campaign due to political intrigue and when he discovers that Morris has been covering up an affair with a youthful intern. He uses this information to conduct subterfuge of his own, securing his spot back in the campaign as senior campaign manager enabling him to dictate the direction of the campaign so that Morris will secure enough delegates to clinch the Democratic nomination. The movie demonstrates well the Machiavellian nature of politics, and Meyers’s transformation from an idealist shocked that he would be a target of political tricks into a cynic using them himself sends a clear message to the audience: politics is a underhanded  game, and to get ahead you might need to be prepared to play dirty.

The movie itself is well done. I thought that the acting was very good. The cast is comprised of some pretty big-name stars, such as George Clooney, Ryan Gosling,  Paul Giamatti, and Philip Seymour Hoffman. I have to admit I’m a massive fan of Philip Seymour Hoffman, so getting to see him in this movie gave it bonus points regardless of how the movie itself might have turned out. Each of the actors played their roles convincingly and realistically, and I thought that Ryan Gosling performed fantastically. He fit the role of a young professional working on a campaign well, and he seemed real comfortable in it. I also really enjoyed the work of Paul Giamatti as a scheming, cynical, burnt-out campaign manager. Giamatti just seems to fit any role as a burn-out perfectly, and I was thoroughly convinced throughout the movie that he actually hated his job. It was quite fantastic. I thought the movie flowed well, at no point did it seem to drag on or lose my interest. As a piece of cinematography, it functioned real well: it had good camera work, a good soundtrack, it was well-edited, and so on. Finally, there was something I wondered throughout the movie: George Clooney is known for his liberal leanings, and because he was the director of the movie I wonder how much of what his character said was actually Clooney’s political beliefs. I’m sure that writing and directing a movie where he gets to star as a politician would be a good plug for Clooney to get aired some of his political beliefs and ideas.

The portrayal in the movie of the function and behind-the-scenes of campaigns was very interesting. I got to see the role of the consultant and the role of the campaign staff. For the average American a campaign is synonymous with a candidate, the candidate is the embodiment of their campaign. However, in reality and as seen through this movie, a campaign is run and managed by a wide array of people. I had very little prior knowledge of what a campaign manager did, and this movie did a really good job demonstrating what it was. We got to see examples of the managers consulting the candidate, which was quite eye-opening; while the candidate is the public face of the campaign, the managers seem to be its brains. In the scenes where Meyers and Zara were consulting Morris, they were telling him what he needed to do in order to secure delegates or what positions would be beneficial for him to hold. They were essentially telling Morris how to run his campaign. While I knew that consultation occurred during campaigns, the degree to which it occurs and what is said as shown in the movie was, to me, quite surprising and very informative. Meanwhile, the function of the campaign manager in setting events up for the candidate was also fascinating. I really enjoyed the scenes where Meyers was directing the setup of stages or various other events and functions for Morris. It goes to show that every event that we see the candidates participate in, such as the debates, town hall meetings, and public gatherings, are planned long in advance by scores of people and require lots of coordination and set up. We see the ‘behind-the-scenes’ of a campaign in the movie.

As for the political intrigue, dirty tricks, and underhanded affairs that took place in the movie, I thought that they were very good story elements as well as interesting examples of what might go on in politics. I didn’t know that this sort of political gaming, backstabbing, and betrayal went on in campaigns and in politics. Of course, this is for good reason: the examples we see in the movie of these things take place in secrecy or ‘behind-the-scenes’, things which the public would never hear about or experience. I wonder if this actually happens to the degree that the movie portrayed. If so, then politics is a much dirtier environment than I had thought, and much more worthy of cynicism than I am willing to give it. It’s unfortunate that this sort of underhandedness is present in politics, but it does make sense: politics deals with power, and people will do anything for power. Indeed, the movie does a good job at making the political intrigue seem believable and warranted. Meyers needs to play dirty to get his job back, because his own career was thrown under the bus in an example of political intrigue.

What I took as the central theme of the movie was the transformation of idealism into cynicism. Meyers begins the movie as an idealistic, optimistic campaign manager. He believes that Morris is “the one”, the man who can solve the problems in Washington. Meyers maintains this belief throughout the beginning of the movie; indeed, he tells Morris that he supports him because he believes in him as a candidate. However, this perception of Morris, and thus his perception of himself because he worked on his campaign, is shattered when Meyers learns that Morris had a sexual encounter with a young intern and got her pregnant. The idealistic image that Meyers had in his head about Morris disappears, and with it begins Meyers’s decline into cynicism. This decline is hastened when Meyers becomes the target of political intrigue. He is called by Tom Duffy, the campaign manager of Morris’s opponent, and has a secret meeting with him where Duffy offers him a job. Meyers refuses, and later tells his boss, senior campaign manager Paul Zara, about the meeting. Later, a reporter calls telling Meyers she knows about the meeting, which could cause controversy for the campaign and for himself. Meyers is thus fired from the Morris campaign, and finds out that the person who leaked the information about the meeting was Zara. Zara tells Morris that he is getting fired because of his lack of loyalty. From this betrayal by his boss Morris slips further into cynicism, but it becomes far worse when he goes to Duffy to accept the job offer. Duffy tells Meyers that he never really was going to offer him the job, that he knew Meyers would tell Zara, and that Zara would fire Meyers from the campaign. It was all a form of political intrigue to get Meyers, who Duffy thinks is very intelligent and thus good at his job, away from the Morris campaign. Seeing that Duffy just threw his career under the rug for political gain is Meyer’s final transformation from idealist to cynic. He is now not afraid to use his knowledge of Morris’s affair to return to his position on the campaign, get Zara fired, and force Morris to accept Senator Thompson as the vice-presidential candidate in order to get his delegates. The movie demonstrates that politics is a dirty game, where you can and will be betrayed by colleagues, have your heroes turn out to be not so heroic, and where you can get ahead by being underhanded. Meyers’s realizes this, and by the end of the movie he is acting no different than Duffy.

I really enjoyed “The Ides of March”. I thought it was a well-made, well-acted movie with powerful themes and a fascinating setting. As someone who wants to enter politics, I really took away a lot about the management of a campaign, and the way one needs to be prepared for the worst in people. It’s a bit disheartening to see the amount of intrigue and subterfuge that goes on in politics, though I still wonder if most of what we saw in the movie was just to make an exciting and thrilling plot. I thought that watching the movie really opened my eyes to the role of a campaign manager and the ‘behind-the-scenes’ of a campaign, something which most of us don’t get to experience. It changed the way I perceive campaigns, instead of focusing on the candidate, I recognize that each campaign has a wide array of staff, consultants, and managers working to help get the candidate elected. It’s a powerful recognition.

The Israeli-Palestinian Conflict: Obstacles and Opportunities

Posted on by
Reply

The  Israeli-Palestinian Conflict is arguably the longest running, most influential, most pervasive, and most significant issue facing the Middle East today. The problems facing the solution of the conflict include the issues of Palestinian statehood, the status of Israeli settlements, the refugee problem, and the nature of Jerusalem. The Arab World sees the issue of Palestine as a matter of occupation and Palestinian self-determination. Israel, however, sees its role in the issue as a matter of national security and self identity. It is highly important to the interests of the United States of America that the conflict be resolved. In doing so, a major source of regional instability and a major inhibitor on American influence in the region will be eliminated. There are a number of options available to the Israelis and Palestinians when it comes to solving and putting an end to the conflict. They include the ‘Two-State Solution’, which involves the creation of a Palestinian State alongside Israel, the ‘One-State Solution’, which would see the creation of a bi-national state where Palestinians and Israelis are afforded equal rights, and the ‘No-State Solution’, where Israel continues its occupation of Palestine in a de facto annexation of Palestinian territory.

The Israeli-Palestinian conflict stems from the creation of Israel in 1948 out of the British Mandate of Palestine. In 1947, the United Nations adopted Resolution 181 recommending the partitioning of Palestine into an Arab State, a Jewish State, and an internationally governed City of Jerusalem. Civil conflict within Palestine between Arabs and Jews, and the creation of the State of Israel on May 14th, 1948 prompted a war between Israel and its Arab neighbors. As a result of the war, plans for the partitioning of Palestine were dropped and Israel emerged holding much of the former Mandate territory. The Six Day War in 1967 saw Israel take over the West Bank and East Jerusalem as well as the Gaza Strip. The First Intifada, a Palestinian uprising, began in 1987 in response to regional stagnation, and as a response in the 1990s international efforts to settle the conflict begun. However, the peace process had significant opposition from elements within Palestinian and Israeli society and the assassination of Israeli Prime Minister Rabin created a serious blow to the peace process. In September of 2000, following years of unsuccessful negotiations, the conflict re-erupted as the Second Intifada (Bunton). The violence lasted until 2005. In late 2008 Israel conducted military operations against the Palestinian Hamas government, and since a cease fire in 2009 the general situation has been calm. Many proposals and conferences held for resolution to the conflict have been put forth, including the Camp David 1 Talks, the Madrid Conference of 1991, the Oslo Accords in 1993, the Camp David 2000 Summit, and the 2001 talks at Taba. Despite proposals and agreements for peace, little actual progress has been made towards the resolution of the issues behind the conflict (Boston).   

There are a number of issues which must be dealt with in order to end the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. These issues have developed since the beginning of the conflict, and still present difficulties which have been yet to be resolved. Three of the most significant issues of the conflict are the fate of Palestinian refugees, the nature of the city of Jerusalem, and the issue of Israeli settlements in Palestinian territory. Any solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict will need to take these issues into consideration and will need to adequately and successfully resolve these problems.

The issue of and fate of Palestinian refugees represents a significant and central problem in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. As a result of the 1948 war, an estimated 700,000 Palestinian Arabs, about half of the Arab population of Mandatory Palestine, were displaced when their homes became part of the State of Israel. (Boston) These Palestinians became refugees in the Gaza Strip, the West Bank, Lebanon and Syria. According to 2009 United Nations Relief and Works Agency figures, there are now 4,718,899 Palestinian Refugees, and approximately 1/3rd of the refugees live in refugee camps where facilities and opportunities are limited. Refugees living across the Arab World face similar tough conditions. Plans set forth for the normalization of Palestinian refugees would likely involve provisions for their return to Israel, return to the Palestinian state, or financial compensation. Palestinians refer to UNGA Resolution 194 to underlie the legitimacy of the right of return, as it offers the choice between compensation and return. From the Palestinian perspective, Israeli acknowledgement of the right of return would indicate an acceptance of moral responsibility for the plight of the refugees and a recognition of Palestinian claims to the land. Israel sees the right of return of Palestinians as an existential threat, for they are concerned that a large-scale return of Palestinians to Israel would affect the demographic and Jewish character of the state. They are further troubled by the idea that acknowledgement of Palestinian right of return would indicate an admission of moral responsibility for the plight of refugees. Israel rejects the notion that Re solution 194 grants Palestinian refugees a right of return.

Another important matter in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is the status of Jerusalem. Jerusalem is a city of great importance to Christianity, Judaism, and Islam, and both the Arabs and the Israelis posses special historical and spiritual ties with Jerusalem. The Israelis see the whole of Jerusalem as their “eternal capital” (Beinen), whereas Arabs consider East Jerusalem part of the occupied West Bank and want it to be the capital of a Palestinian state. Following Israel’s independence and the Arab-Israeli war of 1948, the UN divided the city between Israeli and Jordanian control. After the 1967 war, Israel annexed East Jerusalem and expanded the city borders. Israeli settlement in the West Bank around East Jerusalem has progressed since. The issue of how to divide and share Jerusalem is one of the most important which need to resolved in order to solve the greater issue of Israel and Palestine. Peace proposals have been drawn up which offer plans for the city to be shared by Israel and Palestine, and the guidelines of the 2000 Camp David Summit  and 2001 Taba talks suggested that Jerusalem should be divided into eastern and western sections which would be given to Israel and Palestine (Boston). The international community could then recognize both as the capitals for their respective states. Unfortunately, despite a number of proposals and initiatives regarding Jerusalem being put forth, little progress has been made on the issue. In October 2008, retiring Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert said that for a peace accord to be reached, Israel would have to share Jerusalem with a Palestinian state. Since then, however, the building and enlargement of Israeli settlements in the West Bank and East Jerusalem has continued unabated.

One of the most difficult issues in the conflict is the issue of settlements. Since 1967, settlements of Jewish Israelis have grown in the Israeli-occupied territories of the West Bank, East Jerusalem, and the Golan Heights and now over 479,000 Israelis now live in these settlements (Beinen). Israel maintains that the settlements are essential to Israel’s national security needs for effective resistance to an attack by Arab states and serve as protection from terrorist attacks originating from the West Bank. However, these settlements have played havoc with local topography, social relations, and Palestinian economic life. Roads which connect the settlements often block movement between Palestinian towns and villages, and settlements sometimes break up the territorial contiguity of the West Bank. The United States has consistently criticized the construction and growth of settlements as detrimental to the peace process, as has the international community. UN Security Council Resolutions have called for Israel to withdraw from the occupied Palestinian territories, though Israel maintains that these resolutions do not apply to circumstances in Palestine and have resisted international pressures to dismantle the settlements. Several Israeli governments, including the present one under Benjamin Netanyahu, have strongly advocated settlement expansion, providing the settlers with electricity, running water, and protection from the Israeli Defense Force. No Israeli government has yet risked the significant political capital needed to reduce or freeze settlement growth (Boston).

When it comes to dealing with the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, policymakers have a number of ‘solutions’ available to chose from. These options lay down policies and conditions which deal with the issues central to the conflict and present answers for solving them. However, each ‘solution’ has its share of disadvantages, and because of the deeply ideological and partisan nature of the conflict no solution will be able to resolve it fully without some sort of negative effect or response.

One option available is for Israel to continue the occupation of Palestine while no agreement between Israel and  Palestine is reached. This ‘no-state solution’ is essentially the continuation of the status-quo. Unless substantial results are produced from the peace process between Israel and Palestine, the ‘no-state solution’ appears to be the ultimate resolution to the conflict. It is difficult to weigh the advantages and disadvantages of this policy option. This solution is undoubtedly the most dangerous and the most antithetical to the national interests of Israel and the United States. It presents no solution to the ongoing economic, political, and social hardships for the Palestinians. Meanwhile for Israelis, the threat of violence motivated by the issue of Palestine against them will continue and likely grow (Cohen). If current demographic rates continue there may be a point in the near future where Israeli Jews within Israel and the occupied territories become the minority group. In such circumstances the only way a Jewish electorate could continue to elect a Jewish government is by continuing to deny the vote to Palestinians. In such a case where the Arab majority is denied voting privileges and is treated as a second-class citizenry, it would be hard to escape the conclusion that Israel has become an apartheid state (Boston). An international understanding of this would undoubtedly increase Israel’s isolation, heighten its insecurity, and create further obstacles to realizing its goal of a peaceful future. If the United States wishes to continue pursuing close ties with Israel while it is pursuing the ‘no-state solution’, it would need to be prepared to face international criticism and accept a loss of  influence and clout when dealing with the nations of the Arab World. The current support for Israel by the United States is already a cause of  enmity between the United States and the Arab World, so it can easily be assumed that prolonging the conflict would prolong the difficulties the United States face in influencing regional politics. There are few advantages to be had from the ‘no-state solution’. At most, the Israeli government would not need to exert the significant political will required to find solutions to the problems causing the Israeli-Palestinian crisis and then enact them. There is no doubt that an Israeli government trying to evict settlers or enact other forms of compromise with the Palestinians would face dissent from the Israeli electorate. Thus, by enforcing the status-quo no Israeli government would risk being voted out of office. This is, however, only a short-term advantage, and it must again be stressed that the ‘no-state solution’ is the least conducive to America’s interests.

Another possible option to solving the conflict is the ‘one-state solution’. This could come in the form of a bi-national state encompassing Palestine where Israelis and Palestinians share the same political rights. In theory, this option would largely resolve the issues behind the conflict. The creation of a single state encompassing all of Palestine means that territorial issues, such as Israeli settlements or control over Jerusalem, are no longer relevant. Meanwhile, affording Palestinians the same rights that Israelis now enjoy would solve the issues of lost dignity and lack of opportunity which have been symbolically important to the Palestinians throughout the conflict. A major downside to the ‘one-state solution’ is that it would certainly mean the end of Zionism and the Jewish state. The granting of equal political rights to the Palestinians, coupled with changing demographics which will place Arabs into the majority, means that the Palestine of the ‘one-state solution’ will have to include Arabs in its government and will definitely not be as distinctly a Jewish state as Israel is today. This is an option which most Israelis would resist (Boston). Furthermore, for a bi-national state to function it would require a degree of mutual understanding and respect which does not now exist between the Israelis and Palestinians and is unlikely to exist in the near future. The ‘one-state solution’, in concept, resolves the main issues of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and presents an alternative to the ‘two-state solution’ for the peaceful resolution of the conflict. However, in practice the ‘one-state solution’ seems untenable and unrealistic. The Israelis won’t accept a future where the Jewish nature of their state is threatened, and they are already uneasy about the prospect of being in the minority. In a single state where both Israelis and Palestinians are afforded equal political rights it is likely that animosity, disagreements, and differences between the two groups would lead to poor government or unrest (Boston). The ‘one-state solution’, in terms of America’s interests, would present some difficulties. The United States would have to adjust to the Arab outlook of the new state, and conflicts within the new state’s government between Arabs and Israelis would likely make it an ally with constantly changing foreign policy goals and directions. While it is true that under this solution the Arab-Israeli conflict would be largely resolved, thereby doing much good for American interests in the region, the unpredictability of this new state’s foreign policy alignments or outlook is a definite risk to the United States long term strategic interests.

A third solution to the conflict has been termed the ‘two-state solution’, which has long been the preferred option of the international community and the United States. In the ‘two-state solution’, both Israel and Palestine would exist as separate states for the Israelis and the Palestinians. Proposals for such a solution stipulate that Israel would withdraw from nearly all the occupied territories, though it could keep its settlements by compensating the Palestinians with equal sizes of land. Jerusalem would operate as a shared, open city with Jewish neighborhoods under Israeli sovereignty and Palestinian neighborhoods under Palestinian sovereignty. Thus, the issues of territorial land disputes and the nature of Jerusalem would be solved through cooperation and compromise under this solution. The issue of refugees would need not jeopardize Israeli’s character as a Jewish-majority state if a separate, Palestinian state is created and compensation and resettlement is provided for Palestinian refugees originating in Israeli lands. The Arab League peace initiative of 2002 state that, in return for the creation and recognition of Palestine, the Arab World would recognize the state of Israel and establish normal relations with it (Boston). Thus, the ‘two-state solution’ presents a number of resolutions  to the issues at hand in the conflict. Importantly, the Arab League peace initiative of 2002 would do massive amounts for guaranteeing Israeli security: the vast majority of Israeli’s security concerns emanate from its neighbors and are a result of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. However, a number of issues remain in the way of the ‘two-state solution’. There is a lack of political will on both sides to see the solution enacted, and the difficult choices and compromises required to complete the terms of peace, such as the issue of settlements and land swaps, would likely be difficult for Israeli and Palestinian citizens to swallow. Meanwhile, though the majority of Israelis and Palestinians support a two state solution, there are still significant concerns within the Israeli population that a Hamas state allied with Iran would be bent on taking back all of Palestine. This is a risk unpalatable to many Israeli voters (Cohen). Finally, there has been serious issues of inertia when it comes to the ‘two-state solution’. It has been 18 years since the signing of the Oslo Accords, which laid out the groundwork for a two-state solution, but little has been done in the way of actual, substantial progress. Unless the leadership of Israel, Palestine, and the United States can come together and make tangible progress towards the solution of the issue, it is likely that the ‘two-state solution’ will become less and less a realistic prospect.

The Israeli-Palestinian conflict is one of the most important issues in the Middle East today. Six decades of unresolved issues have helped shape and define negative Arab perceptions of and reactions to Israel and the United States of America which supports it. We are now witnessing the changing of Arab regimes into states more receptive to the perceptions and opinions of their citizens. Dictators who had previously supported the United States and the status quo have been overthrown. Thus, it is now of upmost importance to the United States of America that the Israeli-Palestinian conflict be resolved peacefully and promptly. Only with a resolution to the conflict can Israel find the guarantee of security that it demands, the United States find the influence in the region which it desires, and the Palestinians find the dignity which they deserve.

The solution which best serves the interests of the United States of America and the interests of Israel is the ‘two-state solution’. Though this solution requires the exertion of strong political will by the leadership of the Israel and the United States and will likely have opponents, it is simply the most adequate way of dealing with the issues in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Unlike the ‘one-state solution’, which resolves many of the key issues of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, the ‘two-state solution’ is tenable and popular within Israel and Palestine. By providing a state for the Israelis and a state for the Palestinians while compromising on borders, the issues of Palestinian dignity and disenfranchisement will be resolved. The Israelis, as laid out by the Arab League peace initiative of 2002, will be recognized by its Arab neighbors and be incorporated into the Middle-Eastern community. This is the greatest guarantee of Israeli security possible: Israeli’s enemies, such as Iran and in the past Egypt, have used and still use the issue of Palestine as legitimacy for condemning and attacking Israel (Cohen). Finally, by resolving the Israeli-Palestinian conflict through the creation of a state for Palestinians and restoring Palestinian dignity the United States will see its own legitimacy and influence in the region bolstered. With the Arab states no longer conflicted with Israel over these issues, they would be much more likely to support America in situations where their own interests are at stake, such as a nuclear Iran. Of the available options, the ‘two-state solution’ is by far the best. What is needed now is strong leadership to make it happen.

Works Cited

Beinen, Joel and Liza Hajjar, Palestine, Israel, and Arab Israeli Politics: A Primer, Middle
East Report, 2002. http://www.merip.org/palestine-israel_primer/Palestine-Israel_Primer_MERIP.pdf

Bunton, Martin and William L. Cleveland, A History of the Modern Middle East, Westview Press, Boulder CO, 2009

Boston Study Group on Middle East Peace, Israel and Palestine: If Not Two States Now Then What, http://www.fpa.org/usr_doc/Israel_and_Palestine_Two_States_for_Two_Peoples_2010.pdf

Cohen, Michael A., “Think Again: The Two-State Solution” Foreign Policy Magazine, 2011. http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2011/09/14/think_again_the_two_state_solution?page=full,

Reflections on the 3rd Pres. Debate

Posted on by
Reply

Last night’s third and final presidential debate was on foreign policy, a subject which usually matters little to voters. As James Carville put it during Bill Clinton’s 1992 campaign, what really influences the direction of the election is “the economy, stupid”. Our 2012 election is driven powerfully by the issues of the of the economy and domestic policy, and both candidates have given us starkly different opinions on these topics. They recognize that these are the most important issues to voters, and we saw that when the debate on foreign policy became a debate on domestic issues such as job creation and education. When it actually comes to foreign policy, there aren’t really too many disparate and different positions and policies to be had. Foreign policy is generally a subject that finds bipartisan cooperation and agreement in Congress, and usually the international issues facing the United States prompt responses and solutions which both parties find acceptable. We saw this last night as well, when Governor Romney failed to present any new or different solutions to foreign issues than President Obama. As Obama put it, Romney’s solution to the issues brought up during the debate was to “do the same things we do but say them louder.”

The debate itself was, in my opinion, better than the last two. Bob Schieffer had a successful night as moderator. He didn’t let the candidates go past their allotted times for too long, and he kept the debate moving with some interesting follow up questions. He did what Lehrer couldn’t and refused to let the candidates walk all over him or plead their way into having more time. I do wish that he kept the debate focused entirely on foreign policy and not let the candidates tangent into domestic issues like they did, but I can’t blame him. Domestic policy is the nature of this race, and the candidates would probably have found a way to insert their opinions on domestic issues anyhow. The candidates themselves seemed to behave better than we’ve seen before. They generally let each other have their say, and discussion between the two was more cordial than the last two debates. There was, of course, the occasional zinger directed at one candidate by another, such as Obama’s “horses and bayonets” comment, but the debate didn’t devolve into one-liners or the tense and awkward back-and-forth that we saw in the first debate.

Obama has been successful with his foreign policy during his first term. He oversaw the withdrawal from Iraq, helped set up the timetable for a withdrawal from Afghanistan, and did implement the toughest sanctions on Iran in history. Going into the debate, he had the upper hand in experience. Romney has never had to deal with foreign policy. As a result, the debate for Romney was more of a critique of the last four years of America’s and Obama’s ‘unraveling foreign policy’, while the debate for Obama was a defense of his record and an attack on Romney’s lack of experience and ‘wrong and reckless policies’. The two candidates discussed issues such as the future of the Middle East, where they both said essentially the same thing about supporting civil development and spreading rights for women and minority groups. In a move towards the center of the political spectrum, Romney said he would continue foreign aid to Middle Eastern countries, an idea unpopular with many Republican lawmakers. Obama attacked Romeny’s record, repeating a common campaign theme by saying that Romney has flip-flopped on his positions regarding the Middle East and foreign policy a number of times.

Both candidates painted themselves as staunch defenders of Israel, which goes to show how powerful an influence the American-Israeli alliance has on the opinions of the American electorate. Romney accused Obama of not supporting Israel, mentioning how Obama passed it over when going on a Middle Eastern ‘apology tour’. Obama, often criticized as being weak in support for Israel, tried to defend his record as one being a strong ally. He reminded voters of how the United States helped build a missile defense system for Israel during his administration and how he visited the country during his candidacy in 2008. However, both candidates refused to answer how they would deal with an Israeli attack on Iran (which, by the way, looks less and less likely every day) and what they would do if an Israeli-Iranian war broke out during their term as president. On the issue of Syria, Obama defended his record, and Romney presented nothing new in terms of policy. On the issue of Afghanistan, Romney promised to be out by 2014, a reversal again of what he has said in the past, and Obama hit him on that. Regarding China, both candidates hit hard on Chinese trade policies while also mentioning that the Chinese-American relationship will be an important one in the coming decades. Again, both candidates said little that differed from each other.

Perhaps the biggest difference between the two candidates was on the issue of the military and military spending. Romney accused Obama of wanting to cut one trillion dollars in defense spending. This is due to the budget sequester, something which Obama has nothing to do with. Obama attacked Romney by saying he wanted to unnecessarily add two trillion to defense, money which the Joint Chiefs of Staff didn’t ask for and the military didn’t need. The main issue of the military expenditure boiled down to what the military needs in the future and how it will make use of its money. Romney accused Obama of cutting the navy’s amount of ships, to which Obama had his quip about needing less ships but also needing less ‘horses and bayonets’.  I have to agree with the President. The United States already spends more than the next ten countries combined on defense. We don’t need more money in the defense budget when we are already the strongest nation in the world and are going to remain so for a long time.

The foreign policy debate tonight was interesting. Perhaps by its nature or perhaps by Romeny’s inexperience with the matter, both candidates said pretty much the same thing when it came to most the issues and presented the same policies. They tried to interject their differing domestic policy positions into the debate to show how they were unlike their opponent. This is a result of the nature of this race, however, and as Obama put it, we aren’t looking for ‘nation building abroad but nation building back home’. As a final debate, however, I thought that the candidates performed cordially and performed well. I thought that the President looked and sounded very strong in what he had to say, but then again he knew what he was talking about. Mr. Romney, not so much.