tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6926413038778731189.post5927924943510756630..comments2023-10-16T07:13:12.123-05:00Comments on A plain blog about politics: Campaign Rhetoric and Foreign PolicyJonathan Bernsteinhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15931039630306253241noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6926413038778731189.post-72923509205366976892011-06-21T08:56:40.482-05:002011-06-21T08:56:40.482-05:00Yeah, Obama was never the candidate who was agains...Yeah, Obama was never the candidate who was against all wars. He was simply against the Iraq War - what he called "dumb" wars. He advocated for different criteria in determining which wars to enter, not that he would avoid all wars.<br /><br />He was seen as an anti-war candidate simply because he opposed the war in Iraq. He was always quite hawkish on Afghanistan and multilateral conflicts.Kalhttp://twitter.com/#!/Kalbelgarionnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6926413038778731189.post-46645784056095504592011-06-21T04:44:18.279-05:002011-06-21T04:44:18.279-05:00Good post. Can't take too much political rheto...Good post. Can't take too much political rhetoric on foreign policy that seriously. As Frances Lee shows in Beyond Ideology, there's a lot of political opportunism and rank partisanship, in all policy areas, separate from ideological considerations. But my sense has always been that it's worse in foreign than domestic policy--or, as you say, actions are not as predictable from campaign rhetoric. <br /><br />On the connection b/w personnel and policy--there's an interesting disconnect here, isn't there, in the sense that candidates and presidents don't really have that much discretion in picking foreign policy advisers/department secretaries, etc. So it may be less that the selection of advisers = evidence of policy preferences, and more that, from the elite perspective, the actual range of policy preferences is limited by who counts as an "expert." If that makes sense. It's early.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com