That is the title of this lead editorial in today’s Washington Post. It begins by recounting some of the important events since the last Democratic debate, including the Brussels attacks, Obama’s visits to two important nations (Cuba and Argentina) to our South, the real estate mogul’s dismissal of NATO, the I-Phone dispute between Apple and the FBI, and the apparently accelerating climate change. It notes that Clinton gave a major speech related to these topics at Stanford while Sanders has largely continued with the topics of his stump speech. While acknowledging that
Consistency can be a virtue in politics, but so can understanding and responding to global events.
the paper notes the agreement to debate on April 14 and adds
We hope Mr. Sanders will take the debate as an opportunity to explain in greater depth his vision for leading the country and interacting with the world.
Before I go on with the key parts of the editorial, I need to do several things.
1. In case you did not know, I am a supporter of Clinton, but one who has absolutely committed to supporting Sanders should he win the nomination, an even that I believe is now not only improbable but all but impossible given the delegate math.
2. Sanders has been criticized for constantly pivoting back to his standard topics.
3. Sanders has been seemingly reluctant to offer for consideration with whom he consults on matters of America’s relations with the rest of the world.
This editorial may well make it into the pundit roundup, but I felt it important enough to bring to people’s attention that I could not wait to find out. I am writing this before I head off to school, because I will not be able to write about it on a school computer once I arrive — at best I may be able to respond to comments via my cell phone.
There are three additional paragraphs remaining in the editorial. I am going to go through each of them offering some observations/commentary of my own.
After the Brussels attacks, Mr. Sanders declared that the Islamic State is “a barbaric organization” that “has to be destroyed,” and he emphasized that he would destroy it by creating “a very effective coalition of Muslim nations.” That’s not a new idea: How would he succeed where President Obama has had minimal success? What would he do if that effective coalition failed to materialize — would destroying the Islamic State remain an essential goal? If so, what role should the United States play?
Sanders has at times talked about getting Iran and Saudi Arabia to cooperate. That to me demonstrates an important misunderstanding of how ISIS/ISIL/Daesh is a SUNNI Muslim problem, and involving the Shi’ite regime in Iran would unnecessarily complicate matters. Whatever coalition is involved will have to be of Sunni nations. Yes, it is true that in addressing whatever is to be done directly about the Assad regime, we will have to address the role of support offered by Iran to that regime. The complications of these interrelated issues are among the reasons that the Obama administration has had minimal success. From my standpoint, simple rhetoric such as that as has been offered by the Senator worries me because it seems to demonstrate a lack of understanding, and it does not help to try to cover that by claiming better judgment on a vote from more than a decade ago. There are real questions of the role the US should play in such an endeavor, and it is something quite worthy of being discussed on April 14, if not before.
Ms. Clinton, like Mr. Sanders, has ruled out a large commitment of U.S. ground forces, but her response to Brussels was more detailed and more plausible than Mr. Sanders’s. She called for intensifying the air campaign, increasing support to local ground troops, creating “safe spaces” for displaced Syrians and paying attention to Islamic State outposts in places such as Libya. She offered a full-throated defense of the alliance system that has formed the backbone of U.S. defense since World War II, noting that the military, intelligence and diplomatic capabilities of NATO allies are indispensable in the fight against terrorism and other efforts. She also called for creating a national commission on encryption to examine ways to give law enforcement access to terrorist and other criminal communications without compromising data security for everyone else.
more detailed and more plausible here I note that those words apply not only to the response from Senator Sanders but the responses of the three remaining Republican candidates. The ability of Secretary Clinton on matters such as these to go into detail and demonstrate an understanding of the interrelatedness of complex matters puts ALL of her remaining rivals to shame. Given the importance of the role of the US in the larger world, that understanding and experience is one reason many of us chose to support her, even some who agree with the main thrust of the message offered by Senator Sanders.
Further, it is precisely because of the contrast Secretary Clinton would offer against any of the remaining Republican candidates that I tend to dismiss current general election head to head polling which seemingly shows an advantage to Senator Sanders. On this issue alone, even before the Senator might be subject to the “mighty Wurlitzer” of the right-wing attack machine, funded by hundreds of millions of dollars of dark money, Secretary Clinton will come across as far better able to keep Americans safe.
I expect that someSanders supporters will use what is contained in the final paragraph of the essay to claim it demonstrates that the Post is “in the tank” for Clinton, and that the criticisms contained in it demonstrate the influence of owner Jeff Bezos, whom I have seen in one of my recent diaries dismissed as the kind of right wing billionaire that Sanders has been attacking. Here is that paragraph:
Just as it would be useful to hear more details from Mr. Sanders on this agenda, voters would benefit from understanding what trade-offs his health plan would entail, how he justifies his contention that the financial sector’s business model is “fraud,” and other specifics to back up his campaign slogans. Above all, if he is to be more than a protest candidate, he owes voters a richer understanding of his views on America’s role in the world.
Yes, the question of the trade-offs required for his health care plan have NOT been fully explained. We have seen him justify the admitted necessary tax increases by claiming these would be offset by decreases in premiums and and co-pays, although several independent analyses have challenged him on the math of this. But that is only part of the problem. If Sanders has offered an estimate of the additional unemployment that would result by eliminating all private insurance plans in his insistence upon single payer, I have yet to see that. I would expect that will be an issue that might bite significantly on April 26 in one state, Connecticut, where there is substantial employment in the insurance industry.
The question is should our goal be universal coverage, or is the mechanism of a single payer system more important? How do we get to universal coverage most effectively given what is in place? Senator Sanders is fond of justifying his democratic socialism by pointing at the success of such an approach in European nations. I suggest he might consider that one can get to universal coverage using private insurers and regulation far more quickly than insisting upon single payer and look at Germany, to cite one such example.
There are real problems with the current business model of the financial services industry, but merely claiming it is”fraud” is insufficient, and even if there is validity to the charge, Sen. Sanders needs far more detailed evidence to sustain that charge. Yes, one can cite specific examples of wrongdoing, and many of us who support Clinton would agree that stronger action could and should have been taken against key figures in that industry. But how do we best address the necessary corrections without totaling undermining the economy of the United States? After all, while we can talk about significant changes over time in how financial services work in this country, we must be doing so in a way that does not undermine the functioning of the broader economy that is dependent upon financial services. It is not clear that the Senator, in his desire to hammer home a consistent message, understands that.
Above all, if he is to be more than a protest candidate, he owes voters a richer understanding of his views on America’s role in the world.
The campaign asserts that it is in the race to win the nomination, that it can (which I doubt), and that it then can win the general election.
But a key to winning the general is to be able to persuade the American people that the candidate can be trusted with the reins of the government, especially when it comes to military, diplomatic, and international economic issues.
The focus of Senator Sanders on campaign finance and the role of financial services and his desire for a single payer health care system are all of value and worthy of discussion — albeit with far more specificity and less cheap rhetoric than seen so far . But these are insufficient. In a time in which we are almost certain to see more terror attacks, conceivably even some at home, the American people are going to want to know how the candidate proposes to ensure the safety of the American people. This extends to how we address all international issues, given how some of the terrorism experienced at home, regardless of the perpetrators (because after all, some terrorists are completely domestic), is fueled by our relations with the rest of the world.
I think this an important editorial.
I wanted to be sure others read it.
I had a few thoughts of my own to offer.
Thus this posting.
And I hope the subjects raised in this editorial are a major part of the debate on April 14, and we spend less time on process and side issues. This is far more important than when the Senator will release complete tax returns, the content of the speeches given to Goldman Sachs, or speculation about legal implications of the Secretary’s use of a private email server. With the exception of the taxes, all of these have been litigated multiple times during this season.
What do the candidates have to offer us that will help us better understand whether they are ready for the important role in leading the US in its involvement around the world?