Judging The Candidates

Sept. 30, 2016

The first Presidential debate is history and the pundits have declared a “winner.” Actually, more likely, both candidates “won,” depending on which news shows you watch. For first-timeeligible voters (who probably aren’t reading this column), their impression will come from Twitter, Facebook, and a host of mysterious sources of “news” that few of their parents have a clue about. Many younger people are completely turned off to the entire process and believe neither presidential candidate is particularly appealing. Welcome to the club.

What measures do people use to size up candidates? Honesty, knowledge, temperament, accomplishments, leadership, demeanor – the criteria we use are influenced by the president we wish for. Those who dig a bit deeper are probably also influenced by positions the candidates have staked out online on things that matter most to them.

Of course, quite often you have to decipher the campaign rhetoric to discern the candidates’ actual positions. Online declarations tend to try to “fuzz up” their views to avoid offending potential undecided voters on supercharged issues like abortion or Second Amendment.

All this is hard work for voters. That’s why the debates (and, in local contests, candidate forums) are so important. They offer a unique chance to see the candidates square off, to have someone ask followup questions, or to have the candidates themselves challenge each other’s mistakes.

Beyond the debates, one good way to assess the candidates is to do some homework. I start by writing a list of questions I would ask if I had the chance, and at least one followup question for each of them. Try this with your teenage kids.

Then I go to the website and Facebook page for the candidate to see what I can find. These resources are surprisingly thin on specifics, but it is a start and presumably the positions stated represent the actual views of the candidate. Indeed, studies suggest that candidates achieve about 70 percent of what they promise!

As you know if you read my columns regularly, my “go-to” topics are all international issues. So here’s my checklist for the upcoming debates and forums:

1. Defense: We expect to be defended. Candidates on both sides say they would strengthen our military. I want to know how. We and our allies already account for 75 percent of annual global military spending. The U.S. alone spends over $1.1 trillion per year for the defense budget, ongoing wars, nuclear weapons, homeland security and intelligence. Yet our enemies in Afghanistan, Iraq and Syria seem to be holding their own or even getting stronger. So what would Candidate X do differently? How much more do they propose to spend and what would they cut to avoid increasing the deficit?

2. Global Commitments: There’s a legitimate debate that should be had on where the U.S. needs to have an enduring military presence, for how long, and how the costs of such deployments should be shared. I believe some deployments make sense as signals to our adversaries that we do not plan to retreat behind the oceans that protect us. But I have doubts that the constant expansion of our global commitments that has been underway since the end of the Cold War has any strategy attached to it. I want to hear the candidate’s global security strategy.

3. Terrorism: We speak about “defeating ISIS,” containing terrorism and preventing radical terrorists from reaching us. But how? I want to hear a plan. If 9/11 taught us anything, it’s that terrorists can be really clever about bypassing our defenses. As we saw in France, an ordinary truck can be a killing machine. So I’m waiting to hear the plan about affecting the minds of the would-be terrorists. I’m doubtful that more boots on the ground or more bombing will accomplish anything.

4. Russia: Cold War 2.0 is well underway. Vladimir Putin is testing the limits of our willingness to limit his expansionist dreams. He’s swallowed Crimea and sent the clear signal that Ukraine is in his sphere of influence, not ours. We responded by beefing up NATO’s capabilities in the Baltic States and Poland, telling Vladimir that we don’t intend to sit back and let him re-create the Warsaw Pact. That’s a stalemate. In Syria, Putin has taken control of both the military and political situation and shown that he’s indifferent to our criticism. The jury is still out on the extent to which we intend to push back. We bear deep scars from Iraq. Russia is no longer a global superpower, but Putin has the means to play at the edges and to threaten our survival if either side is ever foolish enough to spark a global confrontation. We need to know how the candidates plan to tend to that relationship, which neither side can wholly dominate.

5. The planet: It’s the only one we’ve got and we seem to not care that it’s changing. I’m no scientist, but neither am I satisfied with other non-scientists telling me what they don’t believe. It seems clear to me that burning the huge remaining deposits of carbonbased fuels can’t make the planet healthier, regardless of whether we, China or India do it. So what does the candidate of your choice plan to do to address the planet’s future?

That’s your homework. There will be no quiz before the final – November 8, Election Day.

Jack Segal co-chairs, with his wife Karen, the International Affairs Forum whose next speaker, October 20, is Rear Admiral (ret.) David Titley speaking on the “National Security Risks of a Changing Climate.” With IPR’s David Cassleman, Jack will co-moderate the LWV’s October 10 Candidate Forum.