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

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.

The following post appeared in the Center for Global Development’s blog, Views from the Center on December 6th:

Late last week, Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Rodham Clinton announced her global development agenda, promising to fight HIV/AIDS, end malaria deaths, continue her leadership on basic education for all, expand women’s opportunity and children’s health, eliminate poor country debt, and improve U.S. development assistance. Advance market commitments for vaccines and consideration of a cabinet-level poverty and international development agency are also part of her global development agenda.

The Clinton campaign says:

America has a long and proud history of fighting poverty and encouraging economic development around the world. But that commitment has lagged relative to our own wealth, and in comparison with other prosperous nations. We need again to reclaim this great tradition, which is a testament to the kindness, generosity, and wisdom of the American people. America has long represented the ideal of opportunity. We must once again reclaim our leadership in promoting opportunity around the world. We do this first and foremost because it is right. And we do it also because it is smart. Gnawing hunger, poverty, and the absence of economic prospects are a recipe for despair. Globalization is widening the gap between the haves and the have-nots within societies and between them. Today, there are more than two billion people living on less than $2 a day.

Committing to global development because it is right and it is smart are dual rationales echoed in the Center for U.S. Global Engagement’s Impact 08 framework, Smart Power: Building a Better, Safer World, ONE Vote 08’s campaign, and CGD’s own Global Development Matters website.

Other highlights of Clinton’s global development agenda include:

1. Investing $50 billion for global HIV/AIDS by 2013 to ensure universal access to treatment, prevention and care.

2. Committing to the goal of ending all deaths from malaria in Africa, beginning with a $1 billion per year investment in addition to U.S. commitments to the Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis, and Malaria, and encouraging the use of research prizes and advance market commitments to spur innovation to address diseases in poor countries.

3. Continuing Hillary Clinton’s leadership in achieving free basic education for all, with a specific focus on girls in poor countries and the opportunities created through secondary as well as primary education.

4. Increasing women’s involvement in economic, political, and social sectors around the world as a tool for development and expanding access to health care, reducing maternal mortality and improving access to reproductive health and family planning services.

5. Improving health and opportunity for children through investments in nutrition, vaccines, public health and anti-trafficking.

6. Eliminating debts of the poorest countries including complete debt cancellation for all Heavily Indebted Poor Countries (HIPC) and expanding HIPC to an additional 20 poor countries.

7. Maximize the impact of U.S. development assistance by spending an additional 1% of the U.S. budget on foreign assistance; reviewing all U.S. foreign assistance efforts, in consultation with field experts, and considering consolidating program authority under a single cabinet-level poverty and international development agency; improving coordination with other donor countries; and better tracking, monitoring and evaluating U.S. funds for development assistance.

I again encourage my colleagues to comment further on the specifics of Clinton’s proposals. I know they will applaud her support for advance market commitments for vaccines, and idea born out of CGD research, and will be interested in her consideration of a cabinet-level agency for development, and focus on girls’ secondary as well as primary education. CGD senior fellow Kim Elliott has also taken notice of Clinton’s trade policies that are not mentioned as part of her global development agenda, but will have a strong impact on poor countries (See: Senator Clinton’s Disappointing Stance on Trade).

Clinton’s global development agenda, released last Thursday, is a welcome addition to the proposals Obama announced two days earlier. I am reminded that John Edwards too put forward a global poverty proposal in March this year. So, we have three candidates talking about global development so far and three agendas we can now compare, discuss, and debate. I invite readers to send me any other statements they hear from the presidential candidates, and am hopeful that we will see similar announcements from the rest of the presidential hopefuls, on what we know is not a partisan issue.

The One Campaign just posted the results of their “On the Record” project that compares the presidential candidates’ plans on global poverty and disease.

One Campaign members sent a petition in November urging the candidates to respond to issues that One members cared about. Most of the candidates participated, mainly in the form of video responses. The website is a great resource—and an especially cool feature is that you can compare several candidates side by side and then send the results to your friends.

See how the candidates responded “On the Record.”

Yesterday’s NPR Democratic Debate covered only three topics: Iran, China, and Immigration.

As you know, immigration has a great affect on global development. Here are some boiled down points from the candidates:

Biden said that employers have an obligation during their hiring process to know whether or not the job is being given to an American versus an illegal immigrant.

Clinton said we need better enforcement against those who hire undocumented workers, but that we should have some sympathy for them—and that if the US produces enough jobs, immigration isn’t as much on an issue.

Dodd thought that immigration could be used as a wedge issue by Republicans.

Edwards defended a previous statement that immigration doesn’t drive down wages by turning the discussion towards the loss of good middle class jobs. He also called for comprehensive immigration reform.

Gravel said that the way we’ve been approaching the problem is not going to solve anything. He also said that we should open our doors and if we have jobs for immigrants, they’ll get them and if not, they’ll go home.

Kucinich said that we should cancel Nafta and provide a path to legalization for undocumented workers.

Obama thought that employers who hire illegal immigrants should be penalized, but immigrants should have also a chance to acquire legal status.

Read the full article or the transcript for more.

Popping up in the candidates’ discourse is the issue of trade, especially fair trade, U.S. policy concerning African and Latin American economies, and labor standards enforcement. Here are some things the candidates have said about trade:

Clinton, from AFL-CIO Debate Chicago: August 7, 2007
“I believe in smart trade. I’ve said that for years. Pro- American trade; trade that has labor and environmental standards; that’s not a race to the bottom, but tries to lift up not only American workers but also workers around the world.”
Read more.

Dodd, from AFL-CIO Debate Chicago: August 7, 2007
“I agree [NAFTA] requires modification, but we also need to do something else here. In addition to having trading agreements that include labor, environmental health provisions in them and insisting upon those provisions in any trading agreement here, we need to stop exporting the jobs in the country that already are here.”
Read more.

Edwards, from speech on Trade Policy in Iowa: August 6, 2007
“As president, I will seek to restore America’s moral leadership of the world, and our trade policies with these countries can help. But we are going to be tough in our negotiations because the overriding obligation of the president of the United States is to put America’s workers, economy and national interests first.”
Read more.

Gravel, from Democratic Debate at Howard University: June 28, 2007
“No, outsourcing is not the problem. What is the problem is our trade agreements that we have that benefit the management and, of course, the shareholders, and have neglected on either side of the issue, whether it’s in Mexico or in other countries or the United States. That’s the problem that must be addressed.”
Read more.

Guiliani, from his “12 Commitment’s Pledge”:
Aggressively Advance Free Trade: Rudy will tear down the walls to free trade and create new markets for American-made products. He will protect America’s innovations and intellectual property by enforcing our trade agreements aggressively.
* Reduce corporate tax rates and regulatory burden so that Americans can better compete in the global economy.
* Reform the excesses of Sarbanes-Oxley that are driving our corporations overseas to list on foreign exchanges.
* Reenact the Presidential Fast-Track Trade Promotion Authority and complete the Doha Development Round.
Read more.

Huckabee, from speech in Iowa, April 28th, 2007
“If somebody in the presidency doesn’t begin to understand that we can’t have free trade if it’s not fair trade, we’re going to continually see people who have worked for 20 and 30 years for companies one day walk in and get the pink slip and told ‘I’m sorry but everything you spent your life working for is no longer here.”
Read more.

Kucinich, from AFL-CIO Debate Chicago: August 7, 2007
“In my first week in office, I will notify Mexico and Canada that the United States is withdrawing from NAFTA. I will notify the WTO we’re withdrawing from the WTO.”
Read more.

McCain, from Conference on Bio Economy in Ames, IA November 5, 2007
“Our future prosperity depends on our competitiveness. Globalization is here and globalization is an opportunity not a threat. The American farmer is the most productive and innovative farmer on the planet and can compete with anyone. Period. But farmers can’t compete if they can’t get into the game. My friends, 95 percent of the world’s customers live outside the borders of the United States. While my Democratic opponents play politics with trade — using words like a trade “time out” to disguise their protectionism — I don’t intend to sit out opportunities and challenges of the world’s economy. I intend to seize those opportunities to ensure, as every American generation has done, that our children’s lives will be even more prosperous than were ours.”
Read more.

Obama, from his paper, “Connecting and Empowering all Americans through Technology and Innovation”:

Promote American Businesses Abroad: Trade can create wealth and drive innovation through competition. Barack Obama supports a trade policy that ensures our goods and services are treated fairly in foreign markets. At the same time, trade policy must stay consistent with our commitment to demand improved labor and environmental practices worldwide. In its first six years, the Bush Administration has filed only 16 cases to enforce its rights under WTO agreements. This compares to 68 cases filed during the first six years of the Clinton Administration. President Bush has failed to address the fact that China has engaged in ongoing currency manipulation that undercuts US exports; that China fails to enforce U.S. copyrights and trademarks and that some of our competitors create regulatory and tax barriers to the delivery and sale of technology goods and services abroad. Barack Obama will fight for fair treatment of our companies abroad.
Read more.

Richardson, from speech at UCLA: October 24, 2007
”We must promote trade agreements that include strong and enforceable labor, environmental, and human rights standards. Free and fair trade can benefit both Latin American and US workers. It will benefit consumers throughout the region. And it will bind closer the nations of the entire hemisphere.”
Read more.

Romney, from Trade Advisory Group Press Release: October 31, 2007
”Opening markets to our goods and services is key to expanding opportunity here at home. Expanding trade is pro-growth, pro-industry, pro-agriculture, and pro-American leadership in the world,” said Governor Romney. “With years of public and private sector experience working on trade related issues, this group will provide valuable insight into what we can do as a nation to expand trade opportunities around the world.”
Read more.

Many of the above quotations are from the Center for Global Engagment’s Candidate Position Tracker.

You can also learn more about the candidates’ stances on trade at the Council on Foreign Relations website.