And what it means for Nov. 3.
 | By Max Strasser International Editor, Opinion |
|
Sometimes, what isn’t discussed in politics can tell us as much about a country as what is. |
A few weeks ago, I got in touch with our contributing writer Peter Beinart to ask if he would watch the final debate between Donald Trump and Joe Biden and write about the discussion of foreign policy. Peter agreed. |
But when I woke up last Friday morning and read the transcript from the night before, I realized pretty quickly that it didn’t make sense to publish a post-debate piece on foreign policy. The subject was hardly mentioned. In fact, foreign policy and national security have hardly come up at all during the campaign this year. |
That’s for good reason. Between the coronavirus pandemic, the racial justice movement and Donald Trump being himself, there are plenty of issues that feel more pressing to most Americans. But as Peter writes in his column today, it may also be evidence of a major shift. |
America, he says, is in a kind of “interregnum.” This election is the first since 2000 in which jihadist terrorism has not been a dominant concern for voters; a new civilizational threat has not yet seized the public imagination, despite Mr. Trump’s attempt to fit China into that role. When voters are scared, they are more inclined to back “hawks” — which usually means Republicans. The interregnum may be good news for Joe Biden. |
Forward this newsletter to friends … |
Here’s what we’re focusing on today: |
|
No comments:
Post a Comment