Couldn’t agree more with Tufts University international politics scholar Daniel Drezner who argues the U.S. presidential foreign policy debate is already ruined since two-third of the debate will be devoted to the Middle East and none of it will be devoted to American’s international trade or foreign economic policy.
Now I get that some of these topics won’t come up in a foreign policy debate that lasts only 90 minutes. But I’m also thinking that maybe, just maybe, it would be a better foreign policy debate if they actually talked about, you know, SOMETHING OTHER THAN THE MIDDLE EAST!!!!!!
I’m not saying the Middle East isn’t important — we have lost blood and treasure there, some of it very recently. But I simply do not believe that the region is so important that it should occupy 66.7% of a foreign policy debate
via Why the foreign policy debate is already ruined | Daniel W. Drezner.
I’d add that it looks like the topics have been selected to goose TV ratings rather than to explore issues that will be fundamental to the everyday lives of Americans on November 7. Most notably: $1 billion a day cross the U.S.-Canada border. Good? Bad? Could be better? Like to hear about that!