Even by the low standards of American TV news, the so-called journalists who ran last night’s Democratic debate on ABC were a disgrace to their profession. TV critic Tom Shales nailed it in today’s Washington Post in a column titled: In the Pa. Debate, ABC is the Clear Loser.

For the first 52 minutes of the two-hour, commercial-crammed show, [Charles] Gibson and [George] Stephanopoulos dwelled entirely on specious and gossipy trivia that already has been hashed and rehashed, in the hope of getting the candidates to claw at one another over disputes that are no longer news. Some were barely news to begin with…

Amen! The tragedy is the missed chance to ask interesting questions that would let voters see how the candidates think on their feet and how much (or little) they know about the urgent problems that confront the U.S. and the world.

Questions are a powerful tool to inform and frame the debate. Here’s one I wish had been asked: “Food shortages have led to protests and riots around the world. Explanations include high oil prices, rising global demand, crop failures due to climate change, and bio-fuel subsidies — including U.S. subsidies for ethanol made from corn. At the same time, many Americans are angry about high gas prices and worried about dependence on foreign oil. What’s your view on calls to end U.S. ethanol subsidies?”

Such a question is hardly far-fetched. The issue received lots of attention yesterday at a White House press briefing from serious working reporters who track real issues and do their homework. Too bad ABC didn’t get some of them to run the debate!

The good news is that I’m not the only one feeling fed up with the networks and ABC in particular. By mid-afternoon today ABC’s website had logged more than 15,000 comments, most of which seemed to be complaining about the moderators. (I’m adding mine and hope you will add one, too!) The live audience in the hall wasn’t pleased either. The Huffington Post has a great clip of Charles Gibson getting booed when he announces yet another commercial interruption just before the final set of questions.

Unfortunately, the other TV news network debates have been only marginally better when it comes to using the debates to help Americans make informed choices about the U.S. role in the world. Is it any wonder that the audience for TV network news is down to a mere 25 million, and falling by about a million a year?

In a foreign policy speech today, John McCain listed terrorism as our #1 threat—and many of his solutions involved aspects of global development.

He called for America to embrace being a good international citizen: respecting our allies’ points of view as well as our own, basing alliances on “mutual respect and trust,” not tolerating torture, and addressing our environmental crises. Additionally, he said “Americans should welcome the rise of a strong, confident European Union [by]… developing a common energy policy, creating a transatlantic common market tying our economies more closely together, addressing the dangers posed by a revanchist Russia, and institutionalizing our cooperation on issues such as climate change, foreign assistance, and democracy promotion.”

With respect to Africa, he continued, “We must strongly engage on a political, economic, and security level with friendly governments across Africa, but insist on improvements in transparency and the rule of law…I will establish the goal of eradicating malaria on the continent.”

Calling for the renewal of the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty, McCain said, “The United States should lead a global effort at nuclear disarmament consistent with our vital interests and the cause of peace.”

According to McCain, dealing with terrorism “will require the use of all elements of our national power: public diplomacy; development assistance; law enforcement training; expansion of economic opportunity; and robust intelligence capabilities. I have called for major changes in how our government faces the challenge of radical Islamic extremism by much greater resources for and integration of civilian efforts to prevent conflict and to address post-conflict challenges.”

Some other parts of his speech were more controversial: in addition to defending his stance on keeping America in the war with Iraq, he also called for the building of “a new global compact…that can harness the vast influence of the more than one hundred democratic nations around the world to advance our values and defend our shared interests.” If you’re interested in why why this coalition might not be the best idea, the UN Dispatch mentions that the Bush administration suggested something similar–and also points to a book by Matt Yglesias, Heads in the Sand for further reading.

What about Obama and Clinton? Here’s a video that shows them debating about foreign policy:

Read about the global development agendas of McCain, Clinton, and Obama.

Read the transcripts of McCain’s foreign policy speech.

This post originally appeared February 29th, 2008 in Views from the Center, a blog by the Center for Global Development.

The crucial role of the Ohio primary in deciding the Democratic nominee for president is having a regrettable impact on judgment and rhetoric in this campaign, as noted earlier this week by Lawrence MacDonald. But does this necessarily mean that a Democratic president–either Senator Clinton or Senator Obama–along with a Democratic Congress, which has been stubbornly blocking a vote on the trade agreement negotiated with Colombia, would be bad for trade, especially with developing countries?

Not necessarily, at least not relative to a situation where John McCain is president and facing a Democratic Congress (a Republican majority in either chamber seems unlikely at this stage). That political alignment has led to gridlock for the past two years, since the Democrats recaptured both houses of Congress, and the opposite alignment in the 1990s did the same for the last six years of Bill Clinton’s presidency. The problem is the increasing lack of trust between the two parties.

Under “trade promotion authority,” the US Congress delegates some of its constitutional authority to regulate trade to the executive branch. It allows the president to negotiate trade agreements that the Congress agrees to vote on expeditiously and without amending it. That process requires a certain level of trust on the part of Congress that the president will use the authority in ways that Congress finds acceptable. But increasing political partisanship–generally as well as over trade–has undermined the trust that underpins that process.

There is an even more fundamental reason why a Democratic president and Congress, working together, might do more to put trade back on track. Democrats, at least in their rhetoric, are more committed to working on the domestic policy agenda that is desperately needed to support globalization–from an expanded Trade Adjustment Act, to unemployment insurance reform, and better education and training for workers. And, of course, expanding health care coverage has been a major issue in the campaign.

Still the recent rhetoric is troubling and it has costs that the candidates ignore to their peril once we get past Ohio. The Financial Times summed them up well in an editorial yesterday:

“The next Democratic administration promises to repair US alliances and standing in the world. A worthy aim. Yet its first act, the party says, will be to tell its closest neighbours that the rules they are all agreed to are defunct – and if they do not like it, tough luck.”

This post originally appeared February 29th, 2008 in Views from the Center, a blog by the Center for Global Development.

It was perhaps inevitable but it is nonetheless disappointing to see the Democratic candidates for president engaged in such energetic trade bashing (see, for example, the Washington Post’s Clinton Tests Out Populist Approach, Obama Cites NAFTA in Questioning Her Criticism of Corporate World). The New York Times, in a sensible editorial on Sunday titled It Must Be Ohio offered both an explanation for this unfortunate trend and some solid advice:

Ohio, which has lost almost a quarter of a million manufacturing jobs since 2000, is feeling the pain of globalization. Yet what the voters deserve to hear (and are unlikely to hear from the Republicans) are honest answers about how government can help them adapt. Instead, both Democratic candidates were sending out mailers last week denouncing each other’s presumed support for the 14-year-old North American Free Trade Agreement.

Of course the stakes are high in Ohio and Texas (and even in Rhode Island and Vermont, which also vote on March 4). But it is precisely when the stakes are high that we would hope that candidates for president show their mettle. Obama in particular tells voters he prefers truth-telling – pointing out to Detroit automakers the dire need for higher auto-fuel economy standards, for instance. It’s too bad that he and Senator Clinton aren’t giving us similarly plain talk on the challenges of globalization, and what should and shouldn’t be done about it. In recent years global trade has helped to lift 100 million Chinese from poverty—the greatest reduction in poverty in the history of the world—and through cheap imports helped to hold down inflation, too. Would America be better-off if this had not happened?

We care about trade at CGD because we work for shared global prosperity. Expanding trade is generally win-win: countries on both sides of the deal benefit, and most of their people do, too. The real question for American leaders, as the New York Times points out, is not who is best at bashing trade but how to help those people who do lose from trade expansion to adapt. And since I’m dreaming, perhaps the candidates could begin to speak about their ideas for improving U.S. leadership on development.

Not convinced? Check out these accessible CGD resources:

* Global Trade, the United States, and Developing Countries (Rich World, Poor World Brief)
* A Better Way Forward on Trade and Labor Standards, by Kimberly Elliott (Policy Brief)
* Made in China, a provocative video with two workers’ experience of trade expansion, one in China and one in the U.S.

And for the policy adept, two important CGD books:

* Delivering on Doha: Farm Trade and the Poor, by Kimberly Elliott
* Trade Policy and Global Poverty, by William Cline

You may have heard about Obama’s Global Poverty Bill that is setting the Conservative blogging community ablaze. However, it isn’t currently receiving much coverage in the mainstream press.

If it becomes law, it would commit the president to creating and implementing a strategy to help eradicate global poverty. The number of people living on less than a dollar a day would be halved by 2015—which means we would achieve Millennium Development Goal #1.

This bill has been referred to the Senate Committee on Foreign relations. Check it out for yourself–you can read the entire bill here. (It isn’t too long).

We here at Global Development Matters hope that all of the candidates make global development a priority.

This post originally appeared in the Center for Global Development’s blog, Views from the Center on January 28, 2008.

*This post was co-authored by Nancy Birdsall and Steve Radelet

The extraordinary challenges and opportunities of today require a new vision of American global leadership based on the strength of our core values, ideas and ingenuity. They call for an integrated foreign policy that promotes our values, enhances our security, helps create economic and political opportunities for people around the world, and restores America’s faltering image abroad. We cannot rely exclusively or even primarily on military might to meet these goals. Instead, we must make greater use of all the tools of statecraft through “smart power,” including diplomacy, trade, investment, intelligence, and a strong and effective foreign assistance strategy.

In today’s world, foreign assistance is a vital tool for strengthening U.S. foreign policy and restoring American global leadership. Foreign policy experts on both sides of the political aisle now recognize the importance of strong foreign assistance programs. But they also recognize that our foreign assistance programs are out of date and badly in need of overhaul to meet the challenges of the 21st century.

In 2004, as members of the CGD-sponsored Commission on Weak States and US National Security, we recognized the need for rebuilding the mission, mandate and organizational structure of our outdated foreign assistance apparatus to meet today’s foreign policy challenges, particularly our institutions and policies focusing on global development. We called for it then, welcome the more recent calls, and say again: It’s time for the United States to establish a new Cabinet-level Department of Global Development.

We hope that our next President will believe, as we do, that investing in global development is an investment in America’s future — strengthening its security, its economic opportunities, and its moral values. And that establishing a Department of Global Development to manage our foreign assistance — both bilateral and multilateral — and other development policy instruments would streamline the currently fragmented bureaucracy, reduce duplication, strengthen our ability to align major programs with our key objectives, and leverage U.S. dollars and influence to get results. It would establish development as the primary mission of US foreign assistance, elevating development to equal standing with diplomacy and defense as the three key pillars of U.S. foreign policy.

Because development is about more than development assistance, the new Department would have a mandate for policy coherence on the full range of US policies affecting poor countries, such as trade, environment, migration, and debt. It would facilitate the professionalization of a core of development expertise within the U.S. government on issues of public health, climate change, agriculture, institutional development, education, infrastructure, clean water, and other development issues. It would allow for the independence necessary to ensure that short-term political goals do not crowd out long-term development objectives.

Creating a new Department will be a heavy lift politically, and will take significant efforts on the part of both the new administration and Congress. But it would create a powerful new instrument for U.S. global leadership. We hope that momentum continues to build and that these ideas feature prominently in the 2008 presidential campaigns. It’s time for the U.S. to take a smarter and stronger approach to building a better, safer world.

Tonight is Michigan’s turn to cast its votes—and the big issue is the economy. The Republicans have more at stake, since several democratic candidates aren’t on the ballot. According to NPR.org, Michigan may matter the most to Romney and McCain–you can find their stands on global development on our candidates page.

Tune in this evening for the results at CNN online.

How is a primary different than a caucus? You can find out more here.

This post originally appeared in the Center for Global Development’s blog, Views from the Center.

*This is a joint post with Sheila Herrling

The announcement Wednesday that House Foreign Affairs Committee Chairman Tom Lantos (D-CA) will not seek reelection in 2008 following a diagnosis of esophageal cancer is another loss for what is becoming a slim group of congressional champions for development and responsible U.S. global engagement. In a press release from his office, Lantos said:

It is only in the United States that a penniless survivor of the Holocaust and a fighter in the anti-Nazi underground could have received an education, raised a family, and had the privilege of serving the last three decades of his life as a Member of Congress. I will never be able to express fully my profoundly felt gratitude to this great country.

Throughout my adult life I have sought to be a voice for human rights, civil liberties and social justice, both at home and around the world. My wife, Annette, and I look forward to continuing this vital work with purpose and verve every day for the remainder of my term.

Our community is grateful for the tireless work and attention Chairman Lantos and his dedicated staff have brought to global development during his nearly 28 years of service in the House. A patriot, internationalist and multilateralist, Lantos cared deeply about America’s credibility and stature in the world. He has been a leader in raising awareness and promoting an active U.S. response to global warming, and is the author of the international portions of the Energy Independence and Security Act. He has pushed for accountable U.S. foreign assistance that reduces poverty and provides opportunities for the world’s poor. At times, he has been an outspoken critic of the administration’s foreign assistance reform efforts for not adequately informing Congress (see We Are Not A Potted Plant: Congress Responds to U.S. Foreign Aid Reform). Lantos also worked across the partisan divide with the late Congressman Henry Hyde (R-IL), then chairman of the House International Relations Committee, to craft the Millennium Challenge Account legislation, with support from his staff members Paul Oostburg Sanz and later Robin Roizman. He continues to play a key role in authorizing (and reauthorizing) legislation for the President’s Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief (PEPFAR) with support from staff member Pearl-Alice Marsh. And he is well known for his work on human rights for all.

Congressman Lantos, much like Congressman Kolbe who stepped down in 2006 (see Kolbe’s Decision to Leave Congress a Loss for Development) seemed to understand that America’s prosperity and security have become inextricably linked to the prosperity and security of other nations and their people. And that America had a special responsibility to be a moral and economic leader in ensuring that our policies help us while also helping responsible states around the world.

Our warmest thoughts and thanks go out to Chairman Lantos, his family, and staff. And as we look towards the next elections, here’s hoping that a new generation of congressmen and women will fill the void left by Lantos, Kolbe and others to become the new congressional champions for global development.

As you’ve probably heard, Obama and Huckabee were the winners of last night’s Iowa Caucus.

In Obama’s victory speech, he gave a nod to climate change and poverty as some of the topics he would address as president. In December, Obama committed to strengthen our security through a global development strategy.

Watch his speech:

Huckabee also mentioned some global development issues when he appeared on the “Early Show” the morning of the caucus. He said people “in the Republican establishment think I’m a little too liberal for them because I actually care about hunger, poverty, disease and the environment.”

Watch the segment:

The race for nomination is far from over—make sure to check out the rest of the candidates’ stands on global development issues on our candidate page and on One.org’s On the Record page.

The process of selecting the U.S. presidential nominees will begin tonight. If you want to follow the Iowa Caucus results, the Iowa Republican and Democratic parties are posting the results online in real time.

Where do the candidates stand on global development issues? Learn more here on our blog.

What is a caucus? Why is it important? This article in the LA Times can help.

Curious to find out what the results could mean for each candidate? Take a look at this handy guide by Chuck Todd, the Political Director of NBC News.