If you read my last post, you are probably aware of the frustration I have been having with the un-courteous nature of the first two presidential debates. The bickering and childish rhetoric were almost belittling to an entire nation. On both sides of the isle.
I felt that in Monday’s debate, the candidates both fared a little better. At least I was able to pay attention to what they were saying more than the way in which they presented it.
I was struck by how little the two candidates actually differed on most foreign policy issues. As someone planning to become an expat during the next presidential term, foreign policy is actually quite important to me. In fact, the perception of foreigners of the United States has been important to me for a long time, being that I am a dual citizen.
Yet I found that during the debate, despite the fact that the candidates tried to use tone and inflection to seem contrary to each other, their positions were much aligned. Romney almost echoed word for word Obama’s policies on Syria and Iran, the two places in the Middle East most dramatic in current American politics.
In fact, the only contention that I really noticed was when the candidates brought the debate back home, to economic issues. In the discussion about America’s role as an international power, both candidates made points about American economy-which is somewhat disturbingly ironic, considering the topic. Obama pointed out that Romney’s policies would bring us back to the Bush era, and won’t reduce the deficit. Romney reiterated his five point plan and how he knows how to create jobs.
So, when it comes down to it was it really a foreign policy debate? Or was it just two men trying to say the same things in a manner that seemed opposing and accusatory, or reiterate their national viewpoints?
