Leave or remain? In or out? Left or right? Right or wrong? Good or bad? Sooner or later? Clinton or Trump? The complexities of modern life require more consideration than a binary choice can ever do justice to. Yet so often we allow ourselves to be seduced into making a choice of ’either/or’ when presented with one.After all, there is a 50:50 chance of getting right or wrong and many yearn for a balanced approach.
July sees the Democratic and Republican national conventions where the presumed candidacies of Hilary Clinton and Donald Trump will be endorsed, respectively, by each party’s delegates. The nature of the final stage of the race for the White House is usually a binary choice.
There is nothing to stop an additional party candidate but, historically, any third party runners have acted as mere spoilers. Yet there is a considered view that 2016’s ‘spoiler candidates’ from, perhaps, the Libertarian Party and the Green Party could be influential in attracting votes away from the two main protagonists and affect the outcome of the November poll.
It is also assumed that foreign policy wise, the two likely candidates will pursue quite distinct approaches upon occupying the Oval Office. Put lazily, one will pull up the drawbridge - if not build a wall - to shore-up a protectionist stance and the other will be interventionist in a more obvious way than the 44th president has been.
Again, it seems like a choice between one way or another but the duties incumbent of the role of Mr or Madam President as the head of state, the head of government and commander-in-chief of the armed forces make for a more complex approach to policy making, thankfully.
What foreign policy commentators do seem to agree on is that the 45th President of the United States of America needs to decide whether or not he or she wants to see the USA continue in its role as the world’s ‘policeman’ – a role occupied after 1945.
Back then there did seem to be a binary choice between two powerful, opposing forces: communism and anti-communism. But since the demise of the Soviet empire, things have, even on the surface, become more complex and there are certainly more than two forces in play when it comes to powerful nations with global ambitions.
The same commentators feel that if the USA is to retire from its policeman role then it needs to make it plain to the rest of the world sooner rather than later. Some policy experts feel it is now time for the USA to become part of a new constabulary force. Either that or it is going to have to carve out its new post-retirement identity and make plain its attitude to any new recruits who are rising up the ranks.
In terms of military, diplomatic and commercial clout the USA’s pre-eminence endures. Whoever is inaugurated next January will have to make more than two choices about what to do with all that power, that’s for sure. It’s not a case of use it or lose it because it’s always likey going to have it.
High up on the new president’s ‘to do’ list will surely be what to do with its transatlantic cousins who live in an increasingly fractious if not fractured Europe.
Who would have thought that just having two options would make things so complicated? A binary choice in some affairs is just too, too simplistic.
July sees the Democratic and Republican national conventions where the presumed candidacies of Hilary Clinton and Donald Trump will be endorsed, respectively, by each party’s delegates. The nature of the final stage of the race for the White House is usually a binary choice.
There is nothing to stop an additional party candidate but, historically, any third party runners have acted as mere spoilers. Yet there is a considered view that 2016’s ‘spoiler candidates’ from, perhaps, the Libertarian Party and the Green Party could be influential in attracting votes away from the two main protagonists and affect the outcome of the November poll.
It is also assumed that foreign policy wise, the two likely candidates will pursue quite distinct approaches upon occupying the Oval Office. Put lazily, one will pull up the drawbridge - if not build a wall - to shore-up a protectionist stance and the other will be interventionist in a more obvious way than the 44th president has been.
Again, it seems like a choice between one way or another but the duties incumbent of the role of Mr or Madam President as the head of state, the head of government and commander-in-chief of the armed forces make for a more complex approach to policy making, thankfully.
What foreign policy commentators do seem to agree on is that the 45th President of the United States of America needs to decide whether or not he or she wants to see the USA continue in its role as the world’s ‘policeman’ – a role occupied after 1945.
Back then there did seem to be a binary choice between two powerful, opposing forces: communism and anti-communism. But since the demise of the Soviet empire, things have, even on the surface, become more complex and there are certainly more than two forces in play when it comes to powerful nations with global ambitions.
The same commentators feel that if the USA is to retire from its policeman role then it needs to make it plain to the rest of the world sooner rather than later. Some policy experts feel it is now time for the USA to become part of a new constabulary force. Either that or it is going to have to carve out its new post-retirement identity and make plain its attitude to any new recruits who are rising up the ranks.
In terms of military, diplomatic and commercial clout the USA’s pre-eminence endures. Whoever is inaugurated next January will have to make more than two choices about what to do with all that power, that’s for sure. It’s not a case of use it or lose it because it’s always likey going to have it.
High up on the new president’s ‘to do’ list will surely be what to do with its transatlantic cousins who live in an increasingly fractious if not fractured Europe.
Who would have thought that just having two options would make things so complicated? A binary choice in some affairs is just too, too simplistic.
Will Mooney MRICS
Partner
Commercial, Cambridge
No comments:
Post a Comment