Being a foreign policy wonk, I've been interested in hearing and seeing what exactly the Tea Party brings to the foreign policy agenda. Mainly, it appears there is no focus or even talk of foreign policy in the campaign, which is odd given Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Iran, New START, China, etc.

Maybe it also appears that the so called "Tea Party" has no one foreign policy, and that it is all over the map. It runs from one end-the near neoconservative side of Palin-to the other end-the near libertarian view of Rand Paul.

I think it is very interesting that there have no been real discussion on foreign policy, because I think it will be very important in the next Congress on three things: 1. The DoD Budget. 2. War in Afghanistan and 3. The New START Treaty.

1. The DoD budget: Will the new members of Congress ally with SECDEF Gates and members of the Democratic Party to slash the sacred Defense Budget next year?I could easily see some new members of the smaller government crowd and libertarians uniting with Democrats on reducing unneeded DoD budget items. Now, agreeing on what items and coordinating with WH will be interesting.

2. Afghanistan. If some of the Tea Party candidates want to slowly start bringing our boys home or are against spending money over there, how will that play out? Or will the new members fall in line with the rest of the Republicans in defense of the war?

3. New START. The treaty, which has insane bipartisan support from the military and former officials, is probably going to be voted on during the lame duck session. But, three Senators in current races will be seated immediately. How do they view the treaty and what are their pros and cons with it? There have been little, if not any, discussion on the treaty and their vote could be crucial in ratification.

http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/10/21/tea-party-foreign-policy-a-bit-cloudy/?ref=todayspaper
http://thecable.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2010/10/21/how_midterm_elections_will_immediately_change_the_calculus_on_new_start
http://thecable.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2010/10/21/christine_o_donnell_can_t_wait_to_work_with_hillary_clinton_as_a_senate_foreign_rel

ptown - Good questions to ask. But as you know, foreign policy is item #5 or #6 in what matters to Americans most in this election. This mid-term election is about jobs, the economy, unemployment, the debt, lack of jobs, economic growth, taxes, and raising employment. OK, I made a couple repetitions for emphasis, but you get the point. The TEA (Taxed Enough Already) Party was spawned due to all of these factors. It is here because of these core concerns, and has no litmus test on foreign policy, abortion rights, gay marriage, other other social issues. You see, it's not a political party, but a movement that has a growing number of people who agree with them on matters economic.

The main stream media, liberals, the Left, Progressives, et al, would like nothing better than to shread the Tea Party movement. This is due to their exact opposite stance on every economic issue. One of their latest maneuvers is to start dividing the Tea Party into groups, just like they view the world. Their efforts to try to use abortion rights, gay marriage, and national security concerns as wedge issues to make them fight internally, have so far borne no fruit. This is the Saul Alinsky approach and it's not working. If the Tea Party ever appoints a "leader", if they ever try to come up with a platform encompassing more than economic issues, or if they ever try to become a "3rd party", then they will begin to wilt and support will wane. What the Democratic Party fails to realize is that if the newly elected Repubs that ran on Tea Party ideals fail to deliver and turn into Dem Lite (again), the anger towards them will reappear and could signal the end of the Repubs as traditionally known.

BGFalcons82;528544 wrote:ptown - Good questions to ask. But as you know, foreign policy is item #5 or #6 in what matters to Americans most in this election. This mid-term election is about jobs, the economy, unemployment, the debt, lack of jobs, economic growth, taxes, and raising employment. OK, I made a couple repetitions for emphasis, but you get the point. The TEA (Taxed Enough Already) Party was spawned due to all of these factors. It is here because of these core concerns, and has no litmus test on foreign policy, abortion rights, gay marriage, other other social issues. You see, it's not a political party, but a movement that has a growing number of people who agree with them on matters economic.

The main stream media, liberals, the Left, Progressives, et al, would like nothing better than to shread the Tea Party movement. This is due to their exact opposite stance on every economic issue. One of their latest maneuvers is to start dividing the Tea Party into groups, just like they view the world. Their efforts to try to use abortion rights, gay marriage, and national security concerns as wedge issues to make them fight internally, have so far borne no fruit. This is the Saul Alinsky approach and it's not working. If the Tea Party ever appoints a "leader", if they ever try to come up with a platform encompassing more than economic issues, or if they ever try to become a "3rd party", then they will begin to wilt and support will wane. What the Democratic Party fails to realize is that if the newly elected Repubs that ran on Tea Party ideals fail to deliver and turn into Dem Lite (again), the anger towards them will reappear and could signal the end of the Repubs as traditionally known.

I get all you are saying. But, I disagree that national security is not a big issue, especially in terms of the defense budget.
Take the example of the UK, who just recently gashed everything, including the military. Would members of the Tea Party movement support such drastic cuts here? If so, how? It would reduce spending and debt. But, how would they balance cuts and national security?

Afghanistan is also interesting in that we have our boys fighting and dieing, but no debate on the merits or strategy of the war at home. I find that really, really, really odd.

Also, on New START. Since 3 new Senators could be voting on the treaty, I think it is important to get their view and why they would support or not support the treaty.

ptown_trojans_1;528562 wrote:I get all you are saying. But, I disagree that national security is not a big issue, especially in terms of the defense budget.
Take the example of the UK, who just recently gashed everything, including the military. Would members of the Tea Party movement support such drastic cuts here? If so, how? It would reduce spending and debt. But, how would they balance cuts and national security?

Afghanistan is also interesting in that we have our boys fighting and dieing, but no debate on the merits or strategy of the war at home. I find that really, really, really odd.

Cuts for all, I say. Do we really need all these bases all over the globe? Per another thread on the OC re: Afghanistan...we either go in there to kick ass, take names, and kill all the bad guys, or we leave. The middle ground of political correctness is killing American soldiers, costing billions of dollars, and distracting our leaders from the real enemies. We either decide to win or decide to lose. We can no longer afford to decide to just be there. Did we learn ANYTHING from Vietnam???

National Security is a big issue and fair game to ask. But it's not in the top 5, so most Americans don't really give a shit unless it provides them a job. It's where we are today.

Ehhh, I'm so fed up with politics in Washington that I'll be satisfied to vote for someone who shares my views on even just a few issues.

Foreign policy doesn't concern me like it used to. Obama was almost polar-opposite to Bush and little has changed. The world leaders get up there, thump their chests and talk strong rhetoric but the deals usually get done by much smarter and more informed people.

My main worry is some of these TP's are full-fledged idiots, but even an idiot can balance a freakin' checkbook.

I think it's a fair question, since most (if not all) Tea Party sympathizers are running as Republicans on the ballots. Foreign policy, most accurately national security and defense, have been anchor planks in the Republicans' platform since as far back as I can remember, yet precious few TP candidates have voiced their opinion on it. I can understand that they are questioned about their beliefs regarding the government and the economy, but foreign policy is as crucial now as ever. I would like to see some serious questions asked, but with only 10 days remaining I doubt we'll see it.

BGFalcons82;528576 wrote:Cuts for all, I say. Do we really need all these bases all over the globe? Per another thread on the OC re: Afghanistan...we either go in there to kick ass, take names, and kill all the bad guys, or we leave. The middle ground of political correctness is killing American soldiers, costing billions of dollars, and distracting our leaders from the real enemies. We either decide to win or decide to lose. We can no longer afford to decide to just be there. Did we learn ANYTHING from Vietnam???

National Security is a big issue and fair game to ask. But it's not in the top 5, so most Americans don't really give a shit unless it provides them a job. It's where we are today.

Base closure is interesting, but how would you do it, and how would a candidate articulate it?
How would a candidate deal with a military commander saying, it would hurt our national security to do that?

Afghanistan is interesting as will the candidates that are Tea Party members join liberals on the war? Will that coalition really press Petreaus to change the strategy and tactics of the U.S.?

I know it is not a top 5 thing, but it should be. We like to say, "it's the economy stupid." But, I would say that focus on the economy in 92 really hurt our foreign policy, especially as we lost ground in the intelligence field. Foreign policy is not a big issue now, but decisions now by voters could have large scale implications in regards to U.S. policy and posture.

How would a candidate articulate it?

Maybe start with something like:

When the budget was signed into law on October 28, 2009, the final size of the Department of Defense's budget was $680 billion, $16 billion more than President Obama had requested. An additional $37 billion supplemental bill to support the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan was expected to pass in the spring of 2010, but has been delayed by the House of Representatives after passing the Senate. Defense-related expenditures outside of the Department of Defense constitute between $216 billion and $361 billion in additional spending, bringing the total for defense spending to between $880 billion and $1.03 trillion in fiscal year 2010.

This is fucking ridiculous.

I got the info in that hypothetical quote from Wikipedia so go ahead and tell me how inaccurate it is.

My guess is that if you had all the "official" Teabag candidates write a foreign policy position paper today, and bind them up in report form, it would make for some interesting reading. Needless to say, FP being way on the back burner plays into the teapeeps hands in a big way.

It may be on the back burner right now, but it is something which must be addressed. Ignoring it or wishing it away will not help. I will be very surprised to see any TP Congressmen or Senators tell their constituents that they are closing bases and cutting jobs.

stlouiedipalma;532154 wrote:It may be on the back burner right now, but it is something which must be addressed. Ignoring it or wishing it away will not help.

When fully one in six Americans is unemployed or drastically underemployed, foreign policy belongs on the back burner for now.

queencitybuckeye;532175 wrote:When fully one in six Americans is unemployed or drastically underemployed, foreign policy belongs on the back burner for now.

American can and should multitask. Sorry, there are issues besides domestic issues that are not going away and need constant attention. When our boys are fighting in Afghanistan, the defense budget is in crisis and the whole military is shifting from 20th to 21st century warfare, the nature of cyber warfare is dominating dc circles, and there is Iran, foreign policy is important and needs attention.

Plus, I thought the lessons of the 1990s (focusing on domestic issues and not foreign policy as al Qaeda grew and grew) taught us to pay attention to foreign policy.

If we don't deal with our out-of-control spending, confiscatory tax rates, and governmental over-reaches into car companies, carbon, and health care, then we won't have to worry one bit about foreign policy. Other than...do we change our national language to Mandarin because the Chinese will own us...literally and figuratively.

BGFalcons82;532385 wrote:If we don't deal with our out-of-control spending, confiscatory tax rates, and governmental over-reaches into car companies, carbon, and health care, then we won't have to worry one bit about foreign policy. Other than...do we change our national language to Mandarin because the Chinese will own us...literally and figuratively.

Agreed, but defense plays into that as in our defense budget. How do we shape our defense budget, we have to base it on need vs. capabilities. What are the needs for the new century, what are the policies that will reduce our role in Afghanistan, saving us money, but keep us safe.

The two issues-debt and defense, are linked, which is why it is sad to me that it is not really an issue.

Ptown, you're the foreign policy guru here... what's YOUR ideas?

Well, 1. I'm not running for office, I'm not that stupid. 2. I'm not a Tea Party member. But, some things I think should be done, quickly.

1. Ratify New START. Makes no sense not too.
2. Reduce and eliminate large platform projects in the Defense Budget (just as the new aircraft carrier, additional F35s, more tanks, etc.)
3. Move to update DoD healthcare system, as it accounts for most of the DoD budget.
4. Cap DoD budget, saying it will not rise more than x amount.
5. Slowly withdraw from bases around the world, but in doing that reassure allies and consult with them about continuing U.S. commitment.
6. But, notice with the administration that while the Congress supports the operations in Afghanistan, there is a certain time where if things do not improve, arguments for withdraw will be heard and even supported by leadership.

Just some thoughts off the top of my head.

I agree that foreign policy is important and that the USA should mult-task to some degree, but right now the country needs to focus on the Midwest.....not the Middle East.

ptown_trojans_1;531307 wrote: I know it is not a top 5 thing, but it should be. We like to say, "it's the economy stupid." But, I would say that the election of Bill Clinton in 92 really hurt our foreign policy, especially as we lost ground in the intelligence field. Foreign policy is not a big issue now, but decisions now by voters could have large scale implications in regards to U.S. policy and posture.

Fixed that one

ptown_trojans_1;533071 wrote:Well, 1. I'm not running for office, I'm not that stupid. 2. I'm not a Tea Party member. But, some things I think should be done, quickly.

1. Ratify New START. Makes no sense not too.
2. Reduce and eliminate large platform projects in the Defense Budget (just as the new aircraft carrier, additional F35s, more tanks, etc.)
3. Move to update DoD healthcare system, as it accounts for most of the DoD budget.
4. Cap DoD budget, saying it will not rise more than x amount.
5. Slowly withdraw from bases around the world, but in doing that reassure allies and consult with them about continuing U.S. commitment.
6. But, notice with the administration that while the Congress supports the operations in Afghanistan, there is a certain time where if things do not improve, arguments for withdraw will be heard and even supported by leadership.

Just some thoughts off the top of my head.

Those are all great ideas to work towards. But the Tea Party's existence was the result of horrible domestic policy with regard to taxation, spending, and the irresponsible reach of the federal govt. They are not the sole policy makers on the R side of things. Sure, they will have to tackle these issues eventually (assuming large numbers are in fact elected), but there are experienced, established policy-makers within the Republican party with whom Tea Partiers can work.

Agree with many posts above, foreign policy is probably in the double digits as far as U.S. concerns....it is a nice topic for academics and students. For the rest of us, it is economy, economy and economy. It probably would have helped if our political class would have the necessary experience in working, job creation and goods/service competition.

Alas, for the time being, we're stuck in neutral, if not reverse, with other countries eclipsing our production.

queencitybuckeye;532175 wrote:When fully one in six Americans is unemployed or drastically underemployed, foreign policy belongs on the back burner for now.

Clap. Clap. Clap.

My wife and I are seriously considering moving to East Asia, because that is where the jobs and production are. It is borderline criminal how much the current administration has ignored this. Who gives a crap what political wonks think, when Americans can't pay their mortgage, can't buy groceries and can't contribute to the economy?

We have an administration filled with academics, they have failed miserably.

Manhattan Buckeye;533336 wrote:We have an administration filled with academics, they have failed miserably.

No No No...they need 2 more years. They at least need that since the R's had 8 years....right? I think 2 more years of what we've seen so far would indeed allow them to reach their goal of fundamentally transforming America. It is what the people want....right?

Y-Town Steelhound;533136 wrote:I agree that foreign policy is important and that the USA should mult-task to some degree, but right now the country needs to focus on the Midwest.....not the Middle East.

Agreed. Not saying foreign policy should overshadow domestic issues, not at all. But, that foreign policy still has a role, that I think is not being explored, especially by these new possible members of the Senate and House.

jhay78;533297 wrote:Fixed that one

Haha. Yeah, well he did focus mainly on domestic issues and let foreign policy slide in his first 2 years. That is the same fear I have, that the Tea Party and many other members of the R and D party will let foreign policy slip, hurting us in the next few years.

Those are all great ideas to work towards. But the Tea Party's existence was the result of horrible domestic policy with regard to taxation, spending, and the irresponsible reach of the federal govt. They are not the sole policy makers on the R side of things. Sure, they will have to tackle these issues eventually (assuming large numbers are in fact elected), but there are experienced, established policy-makers within the Republican party with whom Tea Partiers can work.

I know and I agree that senior members like Lugar will help the younger members along. But, to have no real mention of the issue or any real debate of anything related to foreign policy is interesting and a little unnerving.

Manhattan Buckeye;533336 wrote:Clap. Clap. Clap.

My wife and I are seriously considering moving to East Asia, because that is where the jobs and production are. It is borderline criminal how much the current administration has ignored this. Who gives a crap what political wonks think, when Americans can't pay their mortgage, can't buy groceries and can't contribute to the economy?

We have an administration filled with academics, they have failed miserably.

Academics on the domestic side, yeah. On the foreign policy side, I still give them a good grade. But, there are many challenging issues moving forward.

The whole point was to explore the options or views of foreign policy to Tea Party member candidates who have little or no foreign policy experience. Given that potentially 2 or 3 of them will sit in the Senate, it is a pressing issue to ask.

It was Kennedy who said, "Domestic policy can only defeat us; foreign policy can kill us." I still think that reigns true today. Domestic policy is important, especially today, but we cannot lose sight of what is going on around us in the world.

Why is being an academic or intellectual or student now considered a bad thing? I've seen a lot of this lately used by people on the right to dismiss arguments by saying "yeah well he's just an academic" or the old standby of "ivory tower prattling".

Did everyone forget that the founding fathers were academics and intellectuals? Not that everyone should or has to be one but I fail to see how being someone who thinks with their mind and not heart is necessarily a bad thing. Especially in politics.

I Wear Pants;534390 wrote:Why is being an academic or intellectual or student now considered a bad thing? I've seen a lot of this lately used by people on the right to dismiss arguments by saying "yeah well he's just an academic" or the old standby of "ivory tower prattling".

Did everyone forget that the founding fathers were academics and intellectuals? Not that everyone should or has to be one but I fail to see how being someone who thinks with their mind and not heart is necessarily a bad thing. Especially in politics.

It is just an easy tool used by those who simply want to continue to live in an inane world of generalizations and stereotypes, and don't want to look at things with a critical, honest eye.

Just as so many morons on the left mindlessly rail against "corporate" folks, many on the right like to mindlessly whine and moan about all the "academics" on the left. Both groups are doing themselves a tremendous disservice.

Hell, arguably the greatest conservative of the second half of the 20th century, maybe even the entire century, William F. Buckley Jr., was a definite "academic" and intellectual. Yet he had a tremendous role to play American politics, and is a man i greatly admire. What a shame it would have been if his wise counsel and advice was pushed aside, as it were, because of his intellectual credentials.

Each person should be judged on ALL their values, traits, etc., etc., not simply because they are an "academic" or not.

Yes, currently, some of our "academics," however you want to define it, in politics haven't done a terribly good job. But, that certainly hasn't always been the case in the past, nor will it be in the future.

Whether one has been in the "private" sector or not is certainly not the end all be all of determining whether they will be successful.

But, it is an effective thing to scream when you want to pretend like you know what you're talking about. And, this goes for those on the left who rail against those who are from the corporate environment.

All these folks have valuable, important things to bring to the table, and all should be welcome in politics. So much value to be had from study in an academic environment as well as the experience one gains in the "outside" world, or whatever you want to call it.

I don't get it, just as i don't understand why Gibby/Ty Webb/Douche Blanket/ is always whining about Kasich's exclusively "corporate" background.

Good post. People in business aren't necessarily evil money grubbers just like people who are of higher educations/work in academia/research aren't necessarily pie in the sky thinkers.