The third and final debate of this year’s presidential election in the United States was held at the University of Nevada, Las Vegas, on Wednesday (Oct 19) and as usual, Democratic candidate Hillary Clinton looked a better choice to succeed President Barack Obama.
Her opponent – Republican #Donald Trump undoubtedly did a better job in the final encounter but the improvement seemed only in style rather than substance. The calm beginning, low tone of voice – showed that the tycoon can handle stage fright in a presidential debate better now. But when it came to the content, Trump was disappointing as usual. What does he exactly try to convey in issues like foreign policy or immigration?
What Trump actually thinks on foreign policy?
The Republican candidate’s foreign policy priorities are quite confusing. By expressing doubt over Nato or other regional alliances, Trump gives a hint that he is in favor of an inward-looking America – one which will be more bothered about bettering its home conditions. But at the same time, he constantly targets the Barack Obama Administration for not following comprehensive policies in Syria or Iraq. But how Trump will tackle the Assad regime in Syria is difficult to understand. On Wednesday, he blasted the US policy of aiding the rebels against Assad, saying it could be worse if he fell. So does he want the US to directly attack Assad? Had Obama done that in the wake of an economic downturn, would the same Trump have spoken from a different angle?.
Can a wall solve immigration problems?
On the question of refugees and immigration, it seems Trump has learned lessons in black and white. There is little significance in equating refugees with evils and neither can a wall stop the evil-doers. Instead of putting up symbolic barriers, it is more important to put a mechanism in place to reduce any threat. And moreover, why create more noise on refugees threatening you at home when you have the huge domestic problem of gun violence? Has Trump thought anything about it or he is just happy whining about the Obamas and Clintons?
Foreign policy is a continuity and doesn’t begin with a particular regime. Trump should know that it was the last two Republican presidents – the dad and son Bush – who took the country to war a number of times. And war is not a wise instrument of foreign policy for even the richest economy as it only causes waste of men, money and material. So, if President Obama did not want to get into yet another chaos in the Middle East, remembering the consequences of the devastating Iraq war of 2003, he can’t really be blamed for that. And if that decision had its own consequence in terms of an ambitious Russia trying to fill up the void, it could only be dealt with by an alternative strategy and not just regretting what an American pre-emptive move could have done. The USA’s practice of acting as a world guardian has indeed made it difficult for leaders who try to detach their country from meaningless military adventures abroad.
Trump, however, lacks the minute understanding. He thinks countries like Russia, Syria and Iran have outsmarted the US which is too simplified a way in looking at things.
More than dangerous, Trump is devastating
More than dangerous, Trump would be a devastating president if he wins the election of November 8. He has no fair idea of things; looks a no match for #Hillary Clinton when getting into the details because he hardly has any experience at political or administrative level. When he speaks, he sounds like a layman who is generally disappointed with the establishment but has no alternative idea to present because of lack of expertise and understanding.
And to top everything, when Trump doesn’t commit to accepting the election result when it comes out – one feels bad for the world’s most accomplished democracy for producing a candidate who is taking part in the most sacred event of a democracy but without showing it any due respect. #2016 Presidential Debates