Why You Really Should Listen to Your Professors

Although an election is not really over until all the votes are counted, and one of the candidates concedes to the other, this election had, in many minds, been decided for a good time prior to the results on the Fourth. This idea came out especially strongly in the panel discussion on foreign policy, hosted by AID last week (October 28). Of the three professors on the panel, Marc Landy, Mike Chapman, and Mark Sheetz, the two former stated outright that they believed that Senator Barak Obama would win the election. Despite this, the panel was well-balanced ideologically, and ended up being a fascinating event that all in attendance appreciated and enjoyed.

First to present his opinion was Professor Sheetz, who gave the most even amount of time to the foreign policy positions of both candidates in this election. He began his analysis of the policies by explaining that he would try to use as much of the candidates own words as possible, and also touched on the idea that agreement on certain issue between the candidates was not necessarily a positive thing as both candidates could be wrong. The analysis then went across the subject areas of diplomatic hotspots, such as Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Iran, Russia, China, and humanitarian issues. One of the similarities between the candidates' positions that Professor Sheetz emphasized was their common belief in the moral and cultural supremacy of the United States. More than once, Professor Sheetz referred to Senator Obama's more idealistic notions as derived from some "airy-fairy land," and he also expressed his regret that Senator McCain appears to want to return to a Cold War stance toward the world at large. The comparison of the two candidates concluded with the explanation that both candidates seemed to want to get back to the US being the leader of the free world, and in the pursuit of this, expanding the military.

The second panelist to speak was Professor Chapman, who introduced himself again as a history professor and explained how from his perspective, he was much more concerned with the long-term picture of things. He went on to say that he did not particularly believe that presidential issues tend to have much to do with the real way that foreign policy operates at any given moment, mainly because of the imbedded issues at work. In that sense, Professor Chapman explained that much of US policy is directed toward perceived hotspots which may or may not necessarily be useful allies or campaigns. The emphasis in this explanation was mainly on the ethical burden the US carried based on its self-assigned need to police the world, and how the true effects of things happening now will not be seen for years to come. Some of the urgent problems Professor Chapman spoke on, that he felt the new president would face, were the issues of such a strong Israel and weak Pakistan, oil issues, Turkey and the Kurds, and the Balkans. He also expressed the European sentiment toward the US, the idea that what gives the US the right to meddle with the world. Throughout these explanations, there was no particular emphasis on a specific candidate, as the professor said early on that he fully expected Senator Obama to win the election and so there would be no point in talking about the two sides.

Last but not least to voice and opinion on the state of foreign policy in the US was Professor Marc Landy, who introduced himself as the interesting part of the panel; the dissenter of sorts. He also agreed from the beginning with Professor Chapman, that Senator Obama would win the election easily. Professor Landy then went on, with plenty of spirit, to talk about how the US has been and will continue to be a global leader, and that the next president should continue to employ such a policy in dealing with international affairs. Using one of the words both his fellow panelists had said more than once, Professor Landy talked about how the US has "meddled" in other nations in some good ways, such as the Cold War, the first Gulf War, and possibly even Iraq now. Militarily speaking, he explained that both the Democrats and the Republicans have made some historic mistakes in their policies. Mainly, that the Democrats put too much stock in the "happy talk" of diplomacy and underrate military strength, and that the Republicans overrate the spreading of democracy as a policy and might be overly optimistic on the potential for democracy around the world. Professor Landy, unlike Professor Sheetz, was heartened, he claimed, by the similarities in the candidates. He concluded with a statement of optimism at Senator Obama's appreciation of the role of the US in the world.

The panel concluded with a Question-and-Answer section, where some points were clarified, and some new points were discussed. Professor Sheetz talked about Senator McCain's policy with regards to humanitarian intervention as being very safe, politically - that McCain had set it up so as to have an out so he would not have to commit to any causes that were not immediately beneficial to the US. Professor Landy was asked about who the "good guys" and the "bad guys" were in Iraq, and concluded that once everyone was on the same page as the US, everyone would be a "good guy". Professor Chapman explained that though he did not agree with all of Senator Obama's domestic policies, he was excited about the change Obama would bring to the realm of foreign policy.

All in all, the panel was a huge success, both in the discussion of the state of foreign policy in the US and in getting students fired up about the things to come in the future. And, with the results of the election overtly predicted by two of the three panelists, showed that professors really do know what they are talking about.