In one of the most intensely anticipated vice-presidential debates ever, Senator Joe Biden and Governor Sarah Palin took to the stage worried more about not making major gaffes rather than getting deep into details of what direction the country would head in under their leadership. Neither candidate embarrassed their ticket, but neither went beyond the core talking points of their campaign. However, hidden amongst the folksy talk in an otherwise lackluster debate, Palin and Biden provided apt viewers with a glimpse of their ideologies that will undergird the key foreign policy decisions of the next administration.
On foreign policy, Palin's talking points stuck with lauding the "success" of the surge in Iraq, promoting another "surge" for Afghanistan, isolating Iran, expressing support for Israel, and touting energy independence. Biden articulated many of these same issues, but called repeatedly for a timetable for withdrawing combat troops from Iraq, sending more troops to Afghanistan, and embracing energy alternatives. Long on platitudes and short on specifics, plans by both campaigns would essentially leave large numbers of U.S. military forces in the Middle East, prevent the conditions for a long-lasting peace in Israel, and still come up far short on the energy plan our nation needs.
Knowing that in most years vice presidential candidates are simply expected to know the names of key foreign leaders, and perhaps deeply aware of the disparity of experience between Palin and Biden on foreign policy issues, moderator Gwen Ifill didn't push the candidates too hard to go beyond their talking points. But an hour into the debate she asked some probing questions about the conditions under which the United States should militarily intervene in other nations.
Biden responded, "The line that should be drawn is whether we, first of all, have the capacity to do anything about it number one. And number two, certain new lines that have to be drawn internationally. When a country engages in genocide, when a country engaging in harboring terrorists and will do nothing about it, at that point that country in my view and Barack's view forfeits their right to say you have no right to intervene at all."
Palin avoided the question at first, responding that "Oh, yeah, it's so obvious I'm a Washington outsider." But she came back to define her core principles for engaging the globe later on in her closing remarks. She said, "Even more important is that world view that I share with John McCain. That world view that says that America is a nation of exceptionalism. And we are to be that 'shining city on a hill,' as President Reagan so beautifully said, that we are a beacon of hope and that we are unapologetic here. We are not perfect as a nation. But together, we represent a perfect ideal. And that is democracy and tolerance and freedom and equal rights. Those things that we stand for that can be put to good use as a force for good in this world."
These answers are indicative of the predicament our nation is in right now, with little new or bold thinking about foreign policy. Palin's answer reinforces the neoconservatives' thinking that the United States can play outside international norms, acting as it wishes around the world. This thinking is what got us into Iraq in the first place. Biden's answer echoes the doctrine of "liberal internationalism" which has drawn the United States into unneeded conflicts such as Yugoslavia.
Biden is correct when he added later in his remarks that we need "a policy that would reject the Bush Doctrine of preemption and regime change and replace it with a doctrine of prevention and cooperation." But unfortunately, the policies that both campaigns propose don't amount to a new doctrine. Biden, by claiming countries can forfeit their rights, and Palin, by saying that America is a nation of exceptionalism, illustrate that neither campaign is serious about developing a new doctrine of prevention and cooperation. Over the last 16 years we've seen the results of liberal interventionism under Bill Clinton and neoconservativism under George W. Bush. Neither has guided our country in a positive direction.
Palin and Biden both recognize that our future faces daunting challenges, many of which got air time last night: the Iraq War, climate change, nuclear proliferation, and the global economic crisis. To meet these challenges, we need a radically different direction.
Through its Just Security agenda, Foreign Policy In Focus has offered the candidates and our nation a different choice — one that avoids the twin perils of hard power and global disengagement. Based on rule of law, support for international institutions, leading by example instead of force, and broadening our definition of security, the principles of Just Security offer a new way of thinking about foreign policy that has the potential to truly make the United States more safe and secure.
Perhaps such an agenda is too bold for presidential politics. Our political season is much more about impressions rather than ideas. But with the U.S. role in the world at stake as we become militarily overextended, morally bankrupt, and teeter on the brink of fiscal collapse, new ideas are deeply needed. Both campaigns should look beyond simply trying not to lose a debate and instead talk about ways to move our country forward.
Erik Leaver is the policy outreach director for Foreign Policy In Focus at the Institute for Policy Studies.
