Why Isn't Bernie Sanders's Superior Foreign-Policy Judgment a Decisive Edge?

[cali]

Bernie Sanders has exhibited much better foreign-policy judgment than Hillary Clinton. Yet for some reason, that’s made little difference so far in the Democratic primary race.

Kevin Drum captures this dynamic for Mother Jones. Comparing Hillary Clinton and Sanders, he observes that their much ballyhooed differences on guns are negligible, that their approaches to health care will be similar once political constraints are factored in, and that “the same is true on nearly every other domestic issue. Bernie is off to Hillary's left—either genuinely or rhetorically—but in office they'd both be constrained to the same place.”

That’s basically correct, regulating Wall Street aside.

<snip>

What baffles me about that analysis is why foreign policy is treated like an afterthought that doesn’t factor in the larger calculus. It’s true that neither Sanders nor Clinton focuses on it in their rhetoric, but that doesn’t make the subject unimportant.

Sanders may be unlikely to get a single-payer health-care bill through Congress. But there is every reason to believe that the Vermonter would be much less hawkish than his opponent, exactly as he says. And that difference is orders of magnitude more important than the domestic-policy fights that Democrats are having.


http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2016/01/why-isnt-hillarys-hawkishness-a-dealbreaker/433887/

[Maedhros]

1. Basically, it's this:

The most concrete measure of the foreign policy difference between the candidates is the Iraq War: Sanders opposed it, Clinton supported it.

Given the intense animus directed at George W. Bush by rank-and-file Democrats, owing to that President's invasion and occupation of Iraq, one could expect that Sanders would have a significant edge over Clinton on this issue. However, that would presume that the rank-and-file were sincere in their criticism of Bush's war. Such a presumption is erroneous.

For many Democrats, opposition to the Iraq War was simply a convenient means to criticize a political opponent. Their opposition was not to the war itself, but to the President that initiated it. Bush was lambasted by Democrats for waging elective war based on lies and leaving a destabilized mess from which ISIS emerged. When Obama did essentially the same thing in Libya, he was absolved by these same Democrats - and worse yet, praised by some.

It's the same with Hillary. Her supporters are quick to absolve her of her IWR vote because they really don't care about it.

[kennetha]

2. I vote, almost 16 years ago, makes him qualified to be commander-in-chief.

Really? That's all he's got to go on.