I actually identify and sympathize significantly with Obama/Democratic foreign policy establishment. They generally rely more on academics/experts and place a higher priority on human rights. However, there is one abiding problem which pushes me in the other direction 1/n
A fundamental belief in my foreign policy (and really everything) is that there must be an accompanying cost. There is nothing that is free. Take Obama foreign policy and if I can pick one example Samantha Powers. As a thinker and academic I absolutely love her work. 2/n
However, when push came to shove, the Obama administration was a complete choke job on democracy and global human rights issues. There was such risk aversion to do anything at all almost anywhere. Academics are great thinkers but at the end of the day a lot of policy 3/n
Is a gamble. A risk. As any trader will tell you, you can be right for the wrong reasons and you can be wrong for the right reasons. That is the element of risk. Defending human rights, national security, and so many other values generates costs and entails risks. 4/n
From Rwanda to Syria, Democrats talk a great game but when decisions get made there is no decision that aren't ready to walk away from and point to a fundraiser or a speech that was given. That's not how foreign policy works. You don't get the option of saying I wrote a book 5/n
Actual foreign policy is where you have to make decisions about your expertise and bear the consequences of those decisions. It's a lot easier to live in academia where you don't bear the consequences of your decisions than actually make the hard decisions that bear costs.
