U.S. foreign policy going forward, is about as transparent as mud in the eye of the international community. With the most influential nation on earth proposing earthshaking change to its method of international engagement every four yeas, it has to be somewhat unsettling for global partners.
Not knowing whether they'll be dealing with Dr. Jekyll or Mr. Hyde. is a frightening prospect considering the good Dr. will have access to launch codes. In Mr. Romney's case, we could conceivable get both. Hence, the audience for tonight's debate should be global, as China, Russia and Iran will be listening intently to determine who they'd like to work with if they had their druthers.
Beijing Moscow and Tehran, among others will get to see President Obama and Mitt Romney offer very different paths to global peace and prosperity. One will simply have to presume global peace and prosperity is the goal of U.S. foreign policy. With such a staunch free market capitalist running for leader of the free world, global profits will always trump global peace and prosperity.
While the domestic audience will probably focus on who seemed prepared or who looked presidential, we'll be monitoring who looks credible and who seems crazy. If we hear language like that "peace through strength stuff", we'll know who is sounding like the crazy old days.
We, as most internationalist will be looking for phrases like "partnering for peace through dialog and diplomacy". This is the language of a one who builds bridges not walls. Developing and maintaining sound relationships with the many new players surfacing, will depend largely on America's willingness to abandon the so-called carrot or stick approach to international negotiations.
Oddly enough, some nation states don't like being trained like mules. Some nation states would rather have the option of honoring a request than complying with a demand. Some nations would appreciate an apology from time to time when the U.S. has been caught abusing its privilege of being in country. Hey we're just sayin'.
If the world discovers during tonight's debate there is even the slightest chance of America relapsing into a state of nationalistic militarism, it'll have to divert resources from rebuilding its economies to preparing for another coalition of the ("you fill in the blank") operation. Unfortunately, preparing for conflict is infinitely more costly than preparing for conversation. But when the world has heretofore been forced to cast its lot with a nation having a reputation for wild, unpredictable, indefensible outburst of aggression, one has to be prepared for anything going forward.