Matthew Yglesias » The World According to Last Night’s Debate

Oct 8th, 2008 at 2:21 pm

The World According to Last Night’s Debate

Mark Goldberg’s got a map of which countries made the cut in last night’s debate:

He links to Mike Tomasky who says:

Foreign policy in these debates means: Iraq, Iran, Israel, Afghanistan and Russia. And that’s it. China — China! — barely came up. India and Pakistan (Pakistan came up in the Afghanistan context, but wouldn’t you think that maybe the new nuclear agreement between the US and India, concluded just last week for gosh sakes, might make an appearance?). Forget Africa and Latin America of course, except the obligatory quick Darfur mention. How about Syria and Lebanon? The occupied territories (”Israel,” above, means only that both candidates have to pledge they’ll defend Israel, and then they can move on having checked that box, but as to actual discussion of the West Bank and Gaza and the peace process, nada). No questions on torture. No questions on restoring America’s standing in the world, though Obama did work in a mention of it. And so on.

But forget strict “foreign policy” concerns — just think about the financial crisis. You can’t understand the modern economy without understanding its international dimensions. But missing from that list is the second (Japan), third (Germany), fourth (China), fifth (UK), sixth (France), seventh (Italy), eighth (Spain), ninth (Canada), and tenth (Brazil) largest countries by GDP along with one of America’s neighbors (Mexico) and the country with the largest population (India). Now you probably couldn’t discuss all of those countries, but it’s still a kind of strikingly narrow view of the world.

Comments
48

48 Responses to “The World According to Last Night’s Debate”

Dave Weigel Says:
October 8th, 2008 at 2:26 pm
Obama mentioned Venezuela as a rogue state benefiting from high oil prices.
Stephen Says:
October 8th, 2008 at 2:28 pm
I’m pretty sure South Korea was mentioned, as a source of cars. (Obama was saying future energy efficient cars should be made in the USA instead.)
Njorl Says:
October 8th, 2008 at 2:28 pm
…and the country with the largest population (India).

Did 200,000 Chinese just die or was there a really big population explosion in India last month?
Dan Drezner Says:
October 8th, 2008 at 2:30 pm
Actually, China, South Korea, Japan, and Saudi Arabia were all mentioned in the debate. They simply came up in a different context — as scary countries from which we should not trade or borrow.
Byrd Says:
October 8th, 2008 at 2:37 pm
It’s really sad that we don’t discuss countries in which things are blowing up (literally) instead of discussing countries in which things might soon blow up (figuratively).
Byrd Says:
October 8th, 2008 at 2:39 pm
Whoops! Typo – We do discuss countries in which various items are exploding.
Freddie Says:
October 8th, 2008 at 2:40 pm
So when are we gonna get around, as a country, to acknowledging that Israel is just one of the states now?
gcochran Says:
October 8th, 2008 at 2:57 pm
What you need is a map of the world in which the sizes of the countries are adjusted to the number of column-inches they get in the New York Times and the Washington Post. I think it would be illuminating.
hermano Says:
October 8th, 2008 at 2:57 pm
speaking of world maps, here’s the global electoral college

http://www.economist.com/vote2008/
piotr Says:
October 8th, 2008 at 3:01 pm
Such is the state of national discourse that a viable political candidate has to exhibit common sense in moderation.

A simple observation that Iran is nowhere near Israel nor nowhere near getting nukes or even not particularly clear that it has a military nuclear ambitions and we could start talks on the latter basis makes you a dangerous naif and radical.

Or that Russia and Iran are pissed off for some reasons that they should not be, plus some legitimate reasons, so there exists a room for give and take in discussion beyond “delivering firm messages” which is ludicrous (yes, Obama’s idea).
Fighting pedantry with pedantry Says:
October 8th, 2008 at 3:01 pm
Did 200,000 Chinese just die or was there a really big population explosion in India last month?

Njorl: China did suffer a tragic population loss this year as you’ll undoubtedly remember. But it would take much more than a reduction of 200,000 Chinese for India to vault into the number one spot (although most projections I’ve seen predict India will indeed eventually become the world’s most populous state — perhaps in several decades).

Hey, Matt, any chance I can convince you to use PPP figures as your default? Ain’t no way Germany outproduced the PRC in 2008.
Trevor Says:
October 8th, 2008 at 3:03 pm
Brokaw brought up the UK’s Commanding General in Afghanistan’s deeply pessimistic outlook for *Victory there. Obama and McCain pretended they were deaf and just prattled on about their winning agendas. It’s LBJ and Vietnam redux.
Rieux Says:
October 8th, 2008 at 3:05 pm
You forgot Poland?
JonE Says:
October 8th, 2008 at 3:07 pm
the map omits rwanda.
Martin Says:
October 8th, 2008 at 3:09 pm
Such statements are useless without a comparison of debates conducted in previous years. Perhaps Carter and Reagan discussed no foreign countries at all. We would have no way of knowing from this. If someone can demonstrate that we are discussing fewer countries than we used to, then I’ll be impressed.
TH Says:
October 8th, 2008 at 3:09 pm
Silly Matt.

Americans are xenophobes, especially “undecided voters”. Low information voters can’t have an intelligent conversation about Russia, China or India. It would harm any candidate to talk intelligently about any of them.
Realist Says:
October 8th, 2008 at 3:10 pm
Very incomplete list. McCain also mentioned France and UK as countries which are dealing successfully with nuclear waste.
rmwarnick Says:
October 8th, 2008 at 3:17 pm
Not long ago, I had a wingnut tell me the USA was obligated by treaty to defend Israel. There is no such treaty, but I wonder how many people have gotten the impression that there is.
blah Says:
October 8th, 2008 at 3:30 pm
Undecided voters at this stage of the race are, by definition, kind of dumb. It’s a tricky business trying to persuade dumb people to vote for you. One consequence is that politicians often try to avoid confusing the dumb people by avoid subjects that they know nothing about.
dbt Says:
October 8th, 2008 at 3:36 pm
WTF is going on with Canada in that map?
Hector Says:
October 8th, 2008 at 3:37 pm
Mr. Yglesias,

India is far from being the most populous country in the world. It still has at least 200,000,000 people to go before overtaking China.

I’m also not sure what exactly is “roguish” about Venezuela or, for that matter, Cuba, unless you define “rogue state” as a country that doesn’t do what the U.S. tells them.
DanF Says:
October 8th, 2008 at 3:48 pm
Spain would love it if John McCain would talk to them. The bastards.
Njorl Says:
October 8th, 2008 at 3:54 pm
yep. I left off a “,000″
ClaudeB Says:
October 8th, 2008 at 4:02 pm
@ Hector:

MY already mentioned China in his list of the largest economies, where China is in 4th place.
washerdreyer Says:
October 8th, 2008 at 4:05 pm
Worst map ever.
Jayhawk Max Says:
October 8th, 2008 at 4:07 pm
I am a product of American public schools. What exactly are these blobs supposed to represent?
Ross Says:
October 8th, 2008 at 4:19 pm
Don’t forget Latvia (now mentioned in both Presidential debates!)
hw Says:
October 8th, 2008 at 4:20 pm
You should probably sort the economies by purchasing power parity, which changes the order a bit.
hw Says:
October 8th, 2008 at 4:21 pm
This is the link I tried to post. Not sure what went wrong.
ibid Says:
October 8th, 2008 at 4:36 pm
Ukraine! McCain basically told us it’s the next Georgia. I’m not sure what the standard for inclusion on the map is, but Ukraine, and several other countries, certainly come ahead of Congo, which was not discussed by either candidate, only mentioned in passing by Brokaw (which means Somalia and Rwanda — which may just be too small to see — should be green as well, since they were listed along with Congo).
Adrian Says:
October 8th, 2008 at 6:06 pm
Map is missing Venezuela –

Obama: “Energy we have to deal with today, because you’re paying $3.80 here in Nashville for gasoline, and it could go up. And it’s a strain on your family budget, but it’s also bad for our national security, because countries like Russia and Venezuela and, you know, in some cases, countries like Iran, are benefiting from higher oil prices.”
McKingford Says:
October 8th, 2008 at 6:58 pm
You’d think that as your #1 trading partner, your neighbour with whom you enjoy the world’s longest undefended border, and as your primary supplier of oil, Canada would get some love – or at least a shout out…
Simon Says:
October 8th, 2008 at 7:53 pm
Yeah, McCain keeps coming back to Ukraine: “Watch Ukraine” he said in the first debate, then quoted himself in the second. He clearly has a particular interest in that country. I don’t know how that’s connected to Rick Davis’ seemingly shady ties to various unsavory characters there–but something smells funny. For the moment, I think “Watch McCain’s references to Ukraine” might be useful advice.
Richard Steven Hack Says:
October 8th, 2008 at 8:20 pm
More importantly, once McCain – or Obama, since both are identical in foreign policy – start more wars (along with Israel) in Iran, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Syria and probably even Russia, can you imagine how the economic system is going to handle that?

Have No Illusions About Obama
http://www.antiwar.com/justin/?articleid=13564

I have to admit once being not enamored of, but hopeful about the candidacy of Barack Obama. In “The Year of the Insurgents,” I underlined why I thought the conventional wisdom about this election year was dead wrong, and I was right about that. But what I wasn’t right about was the
extent to which Obama would be willing to deviate from the foreign policy elite’s party line when it comes to the pressing issues of the day. We all know where Obama is right – or, as we used to say in the Sixties, “right on.” The importance of negotiations, the profound strategic and moral wrongness of the Iraq war, the sheer craziness of a neocon-run foreign policy – these are the basics that have brought many
millions to rally ’round Obama’s banner. They were also the reasons for my initial enthusiasm for the previously unknown senator from Illinois, aside, that is, from his apparent thoughtfulness and his seemingly inherent presidential mien.

As the campaign progressed, however, it soon became all too obvious that a candidate raised up by the “antiwar” wing of the Democratic Party was and is a committed interventionist – and, not only that, but one who is still maintaining some of the hoariest old clichés of interventionist dogma, such as the apparently intrinsic aggressiveness that animates the Russian elite, the supposed centrality of Israel’s security to our
policy in the Middle East, and the moral imperative of “humanitarian” interventionism, starting in Darfur and ending God knows where.

His speech to the AIPAC conference was, perhaps, the low point of his campaign: the pandering, once started, didn’t stop. Of course, we had been warned when, early on, he declared an attack on Iran wasn’t “off the table,” and his reiteration of this stance in front of Israel’s amen corner – he would, he averred, do “everything, and I mean everything” to stop Iran from going nuclear – was hardly composed to offer us any solace.

Everything? Really? What about dropping nukes on Tehran or other major population centers? I don’t want to exaggerate the degree of Obama’s slide into a moral abyss, but the man is known to measure his words, yet that time he clearly abandoned his customary caution, and, as they say, let it all hang out. The mask slipped, if only for a moment – and it wasn’t pretty, was it?

On another vitally important issue, the renewal of the Cold War with Russia – a project dear to the hearts of neocons everywhere – Obama is hardly distinguishable from John McCain. Indeed, as I pointed out in my analysis of the last debate, the two of them seemed to be competing to see who could be more warlike and provocative when it came to the issue of the Caucasus. Particularly disturbing is Obama’s complete denial of what happened in Tskhinvali, the Ossetian capital city, when the Georgians went in and slaughtered hundreds of innocent civilians. The candidate echoed the War Party’s bizarre inversion of the established facts, insisting that Russia had invaded Georgia, instead of Georgia invading Ossetia and Abkhazia.

This is no small point: Obama deliberately overlooked the very real human cost of President Mikheil Saakashvili’s Napoleonic ambitions in the region, because there can be no doubt he knows better. As McCain gleefully pointed out during the first debate, the Obama campaign initially took a very different position, decrying violence on both sides and calling for a cease-fire. In McCain’s view, giving the thousands of Ossetians slaughtered by Saakashvili any acknowledgment at
all is inexcusable. Outside of that, however, McCain is right: Obama did indeed change his position, perhaps after due consultation with his advisers. This is strong circumstantial evidence that he did have at least some idea of what really went on in Ossetia, and subsequently chose to ignore it.

This is not just an obscure foreign policy point with major moral implications – it is a huge issue, having to do not only with the regional secessionist movements that beleaguer Russia’s “near abroad,” but also with the much larger question of whether we are going to face off with the Kremlin in a replay of the Cold War years.

As much as Obama denounces the Iraq war, all the factors present in the Iraqi adventure were present in Bill Clinton’s Balkan escapade, up to and including the existence of a “pro-U.S.” guerrilla group that provided us with “intelligence” later exposed as pure invention. In both
cases, the outcome of U.S. intervention was the ascent of a violent and authoritarian group to power. Additionally, in Kosovo, as in Iraq, the triumphant U.S.-supported faction carried out ethno-religious “cleansing” that involved the death and displacement of many thousands.

Yet all of this has been conveniently overlooked by the Western media and the “antiwar” liberals who hate George Bush but valorize the Clintons as the “saviors” of the Balkans. These same liberals will follow Obama into battle wherever he chooses to intervene – of that we can be sure.

If you can distinguish Obama from McCain in this mess, you’re better at it than I am. The two are utterly the same on foreign policy – i.e., more war. Under both, we will have more war in Iran, Afghanistan, and Pakistan – and if we’re not the least bit lucky, with Russia.

2008 “Town-Hall” Presidential Debate – A Foreign Policy Breakdown
Posted October 7, 2008
http://news.antiwar.com/2008/10/07/2008-town-hall-presidential-debate-a-foreign-policy-breakdown/

Presidential candidates Sen. John McCain and Sen. Barack Obama held a town-hall style presidential debate this evening in Nashville, TN, and though the bulk of the discussion focused on domestic policy the two did make several noteworthy foreign policy comments late in the debate.

On Pakistan

Sen. Obama attributed the “difficult situation” in Pakistan and Afghanistan to the decision to invade Iraq. He says Osama bin Laden has set up bases in “north-west Pakistan,” which he declared the central front of the war. He vowed to “crush al-Qaeda” and kill bin Laden, and said he would not “coddle” the Pakistani government as past administrations have. Sen. Obama also said he would insist the Pakistani government go after militants, and would target bin Laden if the Pakistani government refused to do so.

Sen. McCain criticized his opponent for announcing his intention to launch attacks into Pakistan, which he blamed for damaging Pakistani public opinion about the US. He also promised to get Pakistan to “go into Waziristan,” but said of the question of attacks he would “talk softly and carry a big stick.” Elaborating on that, Sen. McCain assured he also had a plan to get bin Laden, but that he wouldn’t “telegraph my
punches.”

Sen. Obama denied that he called for an invasion of Pakistan, and insisted that faltering Pakistani public opinion was due to US support for the dictatorship of former Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf.

On Afghanistan

Sen. Obama promised to “put more pressure on the Afghan government,” saying he would tell Afghan President Hamid Karzai he is going to have to do better for the Afghan people. His primary change in Afghanistan would be to demand Iraq take more responsibility for its security so he could shift more troops to the Afghan front.

Sen. McCain, by contrast, said the big foreign policy mistake was in ignoring Afghanistan after the mujahideen (whom the Senator termed “Afghan freedom fighters”) successfully drove the Soviet Union from the nation. His strategy was very straightforward, just letting General David Petraeus set the tone for the war and having him engage in the “same overall strategy” as the surge in Iraq, which he said would lead
to “honor and victory.” He also said he would seek to “streamline” the NATO command structure.

On Russia

Sen. McCain said Russia might be the same old “Evil Empire” they were during the Soviet era, He also assured that there would be no new Cold War, while warning that Prime Minister Vladimir Putin was plotting against Ukraine in an attempt to “reassemble the old Soviet Union.” He said the US should provide “moral support” to Georgia and Ukraine and penalize Russia for its actions.

Sen. Obama went a step further, saying the moral support should also come with “concrete financial support.” He accused Prime Minister Putin of engaging in “evil behavior,” and cautioned that Russia has “dangerous nationalist impulses.” His said that seeking energy independence would be a good way to “weaken Russia.”

On Iran

Sen. Obama mentioned Sen. McCain’s previous “bomb bomb bomb Iran” song, though Sen. McCain insisted he was just “joking with an old veteran” in making this comment.

Sen. McCain accused Iran of being engaged in a “quest” to acquire nuclear weapons, and said that if Iran ever acquires a nuclear arsenal everyone else in the Middle East would acquire them as well. He chided Sen. Obama for supporting talks without preconditions with Iran, and called for significant new sanctions against Iran. He also called for a “League of Democracies” to crack down on Iran, and insisted “we can
never allow a second Holocaust.”

Sen. Obama said that though he supports talks, he would never take the option of attacking Iran off the table, and would not allow the United Nations to “veto” an American attack. He also said Iran should be barred from importing gasoline as a way of putting “the squeeze on them.” He also accused Iran of having “4,000 centrifuges to develop nuclear weapons” and called for tighter sanctions.

In other words, folks, both candidates agree – war, war, and more war.
Richard Steven Hack Says:
October 8th, 2008 at 8:22 pm
Great -first block quote screwed up. Starts from “I have to admit” and ends after “of that, we can be sure.”

Can we PLEASE get an edit function in this blog?
Boot. Says:
October 8th, 2008 at 11:11 pm
I am so pissed that someone beat me to “You forgot Poland.”
tramadol Says:
March 22nd, 2009 at 6:55 am
tramadol
It is the coolest site,keep so!
viagra brand Says:
April 3rd, 2009 at 4:54 am
I want to say – thank you for this!
cheap brand pfizer viagra
viagra cheap Says:
April 14th, 2009 at 10:24 am
I bookmarked this site, Thank you for good job!
viagra

Matt Yglesias

The World According to Last Night’s Debate

48 Responses to “The World According to Last Night’s Debate”

Blogroll