I've previously asserted that I don't usually do politics here. That assertion is gradually losing credibility. Maybe the volume of recent news related to the scramble for the Republican Party's nomination for the 2016 election is having an effect on what's foremost in my consciousness. Maybe. Some of the campaign news is plain old entertaining, particularly the pieces about the Donald Trump show. He's what happens when a mean old man, who just happens to have several billion dollars, thinks he should be in charge of damn near everything. The results, while not pretty, are at least good for a daily laugh and will likely soon be forgotten. On the other hand, some of the campaign news is plain old scary, particularly the pieces about the Scott Walker show. He's what happens when a mean young man, who just happens to have the backing of several billion dollars, thinks very little about anything, including foreign policy.
Reuters has an article today about Walker's emerging foreign policy views. Reuters, which declared Walker's views are "short on nuance," was way too kind in its assessment of this boor/bully. The article refers to him as "an eager student of global affairs" who, aides say, "has enjoyed learning more about world hot spots." Yea! All of that eagerness and knowledge has led him to declare that the "United States needs a foreign policy that puts steel in the face of our enemies." I guess that's some of what Reuters means by "short on nuance." I also guess the more than 125 U.S. military facilities in more than 25 countries around the world (not including the facilities on our own soil) just aren't enough "steel" for Mr. Walker. More is better, right? Right, at least according to Scott Walker who "would dramatically increase U.S. military spending after budget cuts that have drawn complaints from military officials." Putting aside for a minute the fact that in a democracy more people than just the president and "military officials" have a say in what the military budget should be, what possible rationale can there be for increasing a military budget that already exceeds the spending of the next 7 countries combined? Maybe Mr. Walker should be asking why it is that we have so many enemies that we have to spend more on the "steel" we put in their faces than China, Russia, Saudi Arabia, France, the U.K., India, and Germany combined. Answering that question would probably require too much nuance. Fortunately, I think Scott Walker's chances of one day occupying the oval office are just slightly better than mine. If he does get the job, let's hope he does a little more of that "eager student" thing well before anyone turns over the keys.