Political Parties And Foreign Policy

Where do the parties stand on the trade deficit?

The Republican Party is more willing to accept the trade deficit than the Democratic Party is. And that is not a solid position or answer but that's a general position. There is a conservative economist, let us put it that way. Conservative economist are more willing to accept trade deficits as not only acceptable but in some ways beneficial because America has bond power that other countries have invested in our own economy because we are propping them up by buying and importing goods from them. Another ideas is that the idea that America's economy is so large and we buy so much from so many different people that these other economies are invested into us so they are willing to invest money to keep our economy going so we will continue to buy the goods that they are importing to us. The Democrats tend to be less favorable of a trade deficit and part of this is because of the Union and Pro-workers stance and that idea is that. But they tend to be less willing to go into that trade deficit but support or considering the trade deficit a dangerous and priority issue crosses partly lines in many ways. Pat Buchanan brand as a Republican and he is definitely against the trade deficit. He considers that a big issue. So, it does cross partly lines but in a weak sense you could say that the Republicans, they are more willing to accept it or do not consider it as much a problem of a problem as the Democrats do.

How is Iran affecting party positions in the US?

It doesn't, it hasn't really caused too many or much of a shift in party positions, from the way I see it. There's the idea of what kind of threat is Iran? The real issue when it comes to talking about Iran is how much is diplomacy an option with Iran or how much is more of a hard stance - policy sanctions, taking a strict stance and trying not to let them get away with it, kind of a thing. Is that the way to approach Iran? Republicans, as I said, are much more national security. They're much more willing to see Iran as a threat and they're much more willing to say we need to take a hard stance with Iran. Democrats, are kind of more a party of diplomacy. They're much more willing, regardless of whether they see Iran as a threat, and they don't think that they're, peace and love, that's for sure. They're much more willing to say that the route we need to take with them is diplomacy. The route we need is to get down and start talking to them. And work this out at the negotiating table, instead of kind of putting a hard line down of we're going to put economic sanctions on you, we're not going to negotiate unless you are willing to meet these certain things, that sort of idea.

How is North Korea affecting party positions in the US?

North Korea, again when it comes to these threatening foreign powers. North Korea, the Republicans are much more willing to see it as a threat, and are much more willing to take a hard line of sanctions, of not negotiating until North Korea is willing to demonstrate negotiation in good faith or willing to take some steps towards the United States or the security counsel positions on these things. The Democrats, on the left side of the spectrum, we're willing to think that we need to start talking to them, and we need to start negotiating, and diplomacy is a viable option that needs to be pushed more. Kind of offering the olive branch to a certain extent. The idea that if we take a hard stance and we don't give them much way to go except taking a hard stance towards us. So they're less suspicious of the potential benefits of diplomacy and negotiation, whereas the Republicans are far more suspicious of the ability of North Koreans to negotiate in good faith.

How are the parties different in their approach to Israel?

The Republican Party is much more willing to support Israel, which is a huge flashpoint in the Middle East, much more willing to support Israel in terms of its conflicts with the Palestinians, its conflicts with Syria, and is much more willing to look at its foreign policy in the Middle East with an eye towards protecting Israel. So when it talks about Iran, it talks about nuclear weapons in Iran, part of what it's saying is that Iran already has the capability of delivering ballistics into Israel, and so if they get nuclear weapons, and you've got Ahmadinejad saying the holocaust didn't happen and Israel should be pushed into the sea, that they're much more willing to act upon that. And the United States is much more willing to try and take, the Republican Party is, obviously, in terms of Iraq, more willing to take an active role in trying to create stability with boots on the ground and in the Middle East whereas the Democratic Party is less willing to be forthrightly or just blatantly supportive of Israel. Now, to be honest, the Democratic Party tends to support Israel also, but they are more willing to see Israel as one interest of the Middle East and not as the primary US ally in the Middle East. And so they are more willing to negotiate with the Palestinians or to treat Israel as an interest instead of a key ally, but then again there's factions within the Democratic Party on that, along those lines, and even within the Republican Party, there's factions that are more supportive of Israel and there's factions that tend to be more like "let Israel deal with itself and let the United States keep to its United States" but that tends to be the way it works around, that mostly the Parties kind of divide mostly on Israel.