AT SOME point next year, when Republicans and Democrats have each chosen a presidential candidate, it is possible that voters will witness a serious debate about national security—and notably how to fight the fanatics of Islamic State (IS). For now alas, the Paris attacks have instead dragged an already ugly contest further down the path of partisan name-calling, empty bluster and fear-mongering.
A televised debate between Democratic presidential hopefuls on November 14th showed the strains of being an incumbent party in the White House when a hard-to-solve crisis has left the public frightened, angry and divided about the best solutions to pursue. The front-runner, Hillary Clinton, waffled as she defended President Barack Obama’s broad approach to foreign policy, which she implemented for four years as his secretary of state.
Yet the immediate aftermath of the Paris attacks proved more perilous for the Republicans, as party leaders and presidential candidates offered quick fixes with deeper roots in panic than in logic. Their first target was Mr Obama’s proposal to admit at least 10,000 Syrian refugees to America next year—an idea...Continue reading
Source: United States http://ift.tt/1PCjqqh
EmoticonEmoticon