From: tdsmith@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Timothy Smith)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
Subject: Re: Why Vote for Bush?
Date: 12 Apr 92 18:14:11 GMT
Reply-To: tdsmith@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Timothy Smith)
Distribution: usa
Organization: Carderock Division, NSWC, Bethesda, MD

In alt.politics.elections, pat@chinet.chi.il.us (Patrick Louis Sugent) writes:

>  Mostly, the problem is how can I compare Clinton to Bush?  Clinton
>was a governor of Arkansas who has (as far as I know) issued one speech
>on foreign policy.  Maybe someone could tell me where he stands?  I
>really have little information on such.

    This seems to be the crux of the issue.

    Clinton has not had to address any foreign policy while governor
of Arkansas.  He may not have well formed opinions on the minute details
of international relations.  He has not been given access to any of
the minute details.
    A sitting president is briefed at least once a day on foreign affairs.
The only other people who have as access to as much information are
in the executive branch (Secretary of State, Head of CIA, Joint Chiefs,
etc.) The key role of any president is to get the best people in charge 
of the daily briefings.  No president does analysis, or even coordinates
the analysis. Presidents make decisions based on the analysis presented.
    If Clinton won't profess great wisdom on foreign policy perhaps
it's because he would like to see the situation first. I don't take 
this to be a strike against the man.  I see it as being responsible.
    IMHO, for Clinton to have as much foreign policy insight as Bush
he would have to be either in the State department or in the CIA.
Also IMHO, after six months in office he will have some well formed
opinions on foreign policy.  Not before.

>  In the future, Clinton's views are likely to become more known.  Perhaps,
>I will change my mind at that time.

    It sounds like foreign policy is a chicken and egg situation.
In order to win an election the candidate must have detailed positions, 
yet detailed positions require election wins.  :)  
    From a historical perspective new blood has often been theraputic 
in foreign relations.  Unfortunately, only sitting presidents can measure
up by your standards.


    From my position Bush and Clinton are about equal on foreign policy.
Both are coalition builders.  Both are political realists.  Both can
sooth ruffled feathers.  Both will make whatever concessions are nessesary
to keep the peace and promote trade.
    The (slight) differences are in style and ideology.  Bush maintains
long term friendships through thick and thin. Clinton is a charmer who
can take advantage of shifting alegances.  Clinton would not have hung
on to Gorbachov for as long, but would also have had more difficulty
building the Gulf war coalition.  
    Analysis: With Clinton we would be in a better position vis a vi 
the Soviets, but would have had to stick with diplomatic action with 
regard to Iraq.  Actually, the gulf war may never have happened because 
for some reason Sadam thought George wouldn't take action.  Perhaps 
the cosy relations previous to the war convinced Hussain that Bush was 
a freind.
    Bushs ideology and power base forces him to favor buisness relations,
whereas Clinton will be more inclined to pay a attention to human rights.
However, these are only slight differences in viewpoints.  FOr practical
reasons both would be as strong in either area as conditions permit, 
as weakness in either area reduces our standing overseas.

Tim Smith