Paul Kendall:
My Vote for President

Several years ago I spent a year at American University taking post-graduate courses in foreign policy. Anticipating that because of my age I would be an unusual presence in the classrooms, I made a point of meeting privately with every professor at the beginning of each semester. During these get-acquainted sessions I explained my purpose for being at AU, inquired as to how the professor would feel most comfortable with my participation in class, and presented him or her with a list of questions that I wanted answered by taking the course.

In giving the professors my list of questions, it was not as though I was exactly telling them that I did not care as much about what they wanted to teach as what I wanted to learn, but that message was unavoidable. Although initially awkward, in practice this approach worked very well. The professors enjoyed having me in their classes, and I got most of my questions answered.

I wish that the presidential selection process would be equally satisfactory in addressing questions about the future of our country.

If I could give the presidential candidates a list of questions to answer, it would begin with rebuilding the social contract. Traditionally there has been an implicit understanding between "we the people" and our government. It is that if a person works hard, pays taxes, and obeys the law, we will have an odds-on chance of owning a home, of having our children get well-educated, and of living peacefully and healthily into old age.

In recent years, however, our confidence in that contract has been shaken. Stagnant incomes, anxiety over job security and health care, fear of personal insolvency, and the ill-treatment of new arrivals have gradually taken their toll. Now a majority of Americans believe that the country is headed in the wrong direction both at home and abroad.

So the first question of the candidates would be how will they restore our confidence in this country as a land of opportunity: safe, open, and available to all? Their proposals for livable wages, a better distribution of the benefits of foreign trade, immigration reform, educational investment, and reconfigured health-care and retirement systems should not wait until after election day. Aside from health-care and immigration reform, however, they have been notably silent on these issues so far.

Second, I would ask the candidates how they will restore the nation’s fiscal solvency, financial integrity, and economic competitiveness. The growing national debt and trade imbalances, the declining value of the dollar, an antiquated infrastructure, and an inadequately-regulated financial sector have weakened both our personal finances and the influence of our nation abroad. Yet other than some wishful thinking about possible reductions in post-Iraq War military spending, some limited proposals to take back tax relief from our wealthiest citizens, and some vague promises to renegotiate trade agreements, we hear little from the candidates concerning these economic challenges.

And finally, I would ask the presidential aspirants how they will transition the conduct of our foreign relations to a new foundation based upon 21^st century realities? If the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and the recent signs of global economic instability, political unrest, international crime, global warming, nuclear proliferation, and pandemic diseases teach us anything, it is that our recent unilateral actions, assumptions of super-power capabilities, claims of exceptionalism to international norms of behavior, and a myopic focus upon only our own security concerns are out of step with the rest of the world. More importantly, they are also failing to meet our needs.

To their credit, the candidates have offered glimpses of some new foreign policy frameworks. But their proposals focus primarily upon changes in tone, style, and policy preferences. They only tip-toe around the need to modify our world-view and to re-state our national interest.

Adjusting to the 21^st century requires accepting multi-polarity, tolerating other cultures, respecting international law, and prioritizing shared global security concerns. Further, it requires shaking up some international institutions, like the G-8, the UN Security Council, and the World Bank. These halls of power currently exclude countries, such as India, Brazil, and South Africa, whose full engagement and cooperation are required if our economic and security objectives are to be met.

There are many other questions that I would like to ask the candidates. But answers to the above concerning the social contract, the economy, and foreign affairs would be sufficient to enable a rational choice between them. Unfortunately, in the final moment of decision I will probably have to cast my vote without answers and based mostly upon a review of their voting records and a visceral reaction to each candidate’s public persona and campaign rhetoric. Electoral debates are not like classroom discussions.

Paul Kendall, a semi-retired private investor and resident of Braintree, has traveled widely and lived in South America. He has studied foreign policy at American University in Washington, D.C. and focuses on issues of national security and U.S.-Latin American relations.