We’re probably as close to a major armed conflict somewhere in the world at any time since the end of the Cold War. And it comes during an election that will determine who takes the call at a time when U. S. foreign policy priorities are a mixed bag at best, not to mention the volatility of the two nominees for commander in chief. One is a tough guy persona, but has problematic isolationist tendencies, and the other is from an administration and party that has demonstrated dangerous appeasement tendencies. One of these will be coming to power during what could be a crucial transformative change in U. S. overseas commitments and as American voters are becoming increasingly skeptical about the U. S.-led world order. It seems that it would be nice, and even productive, if we could put aside the social media beat and hear directly from our two presidential candidates on their views on America’s role in the world and their national security policies to defend us. But that would require that we have a preponderance of responsible mainstream journalism.
“responsible mainstream journalism.” Seems an oxymoron in this day and age.
Jim,
Given that neither choice is perfect by your perspective or mine, it is still a very, very, obvious binary choice against appeasement.
Not even close! Do you want a Commander in Chief who tells an adversary, “Don’t even think about it or I will kill you!” or one who just cackles?!
We are in dire need of a Walter Cronkite, Edward R Murrow, or the like.
How the Fourth Estate capitulated its critical role in the health of our Republic is disturbing. The success of “alternative” media sources like long-form podcasts and social media platforms such as X (formerly Twitter) and Rumble are the logical outgrowth of corporate media being captured by the managerial administrative state.
Same Walter Cronkite that lost the war in Viet Nam in the same night the NVA/Viet Cong suffered their worst military defeat in the TET offensive? The 4th estate is the propagandist arm that would make Goebbels blush.
Another problem is that foreign policy is at the bottom of most voters’ knowledge list and concern list. Of the two candidates, I think the choice is obvious. It’s not by accident there was much less mischief by totalitarian states while Trump was guarding the gates. Don’t do it, does not a foreign policy make. Given that Harris’ foreign policy, defense and national security teams will closely resemble the current one does zero to raise my trust level.