Honestly, I have been mostly on the fence re Bernie vs. Hillary. They are such different candidates, and though I agree in so many ways with Bernie about domestic issues, I am not very comfortable with him in terms of foreign policy experience.
I'm of the opposite opinion. On foreign policy, Bernie >> Hillary. Here's why.
1. Bernie's been on the right side of just about every major foreign policy debate going back to Nicaragua under Reagan. I get the impression that the man honestly evaluates the facts before making hasty decisions, at least that's the impression I get from reading about his time in the Senate, HoR, and as Mayor of Burlington. And that's a quality I want in someone directing foreign policy.
2. Hillary seems to be a continuation of the long tradition of foreign policy thinking that stretches back to WW2. Since the Dulles brothers under Eisenhower, we've had Sec of States, Directors of CIA and various white house advisors, who've recommended vigorous action without doing their homework*. With Hillary's track record as Sec of State, she seems to me to be a military hawk. Her handling of Libya was hasty. From what I have read, she knew what she wanted to do before doing her homework. Right in line with Kissinger or John Foster Dulles**. I see her as more of the same. To be fair, Iran deal seemed somewhat better thought out, and planned, and may turn out okay, so there is hope there.
Yes, perhaps I'm unfairly ascribing all the transgressions of the past on Hillary. I'm aware of this. But I don't see her as a bastion of clear eyed analytical and logical thinking when it comes to foreign policy. Experienced? Yes. Biased? Yes.
The thing is, lately I've been wondering which candidate will be the most likely to be sure of his/her facts before taking action. It certainly ain't Carly Fiorina. I think she still believes those planned parenthood videos represented reality. But no need to worry about her as she'll be out soon. It ain't Trump. That guy calls it from the gut, which sometimes works out, but often won't. Oh I shudder to think of it. Hillary, well, I think she's in the middle. But Bernie seems better suited to the job. He seems the most willing to evaluate facts before jumping to conclusions.
*These leaders not only failed to combat confirmation bias, but seem to have not comprehended its existence. They formed opinions of who the bad guys were, what should be done, and then cherry-picked data, real or imagined, to support their proposals. And the consequences have been tragic. There's a long list of examples, I'd recommend starting with Iran's Mossedegh 1953, Guatamala's Arbenz 1954, and Chile's Allende, 1973. (but wait, there's MORE! Congo, Dominican Republic, Iraq, Pakistan, Nicaragua, ...). The common theme in these grave and meddlesome activities, is that our leaders, who we trusted with all that power, didn't appreciate the importance of double checking their facts, seeking out dissenting opinions, or striving to understand reality
before approving military action that cost lives. Many lives. Too many lives. These people, highly educated people, authorized, or pushed their presidents to authorize, often illegal, usually covert actions that largely contributed to the shit storms the middle east (and parts of Latin America) are in today.
** The worst offenders I've come across in terms of pursing a strategy without doing their homework: Nixon, George W Bush, Henry Kissinger, William J Casey, the Dulles brothers, all the neocons (Paul Wolfowitz, I. Krystall, Doug Feith).
Sorry for the long, footnoted post. Lately I've been obsessing on post-WWII foreign policy of the US, and just about at every turn I am gobsmacked to learn how little homework was done before ordering actions that, in retrospect, have resulted in tragedies of unexpected consequences. I want that shit to stop. IMO, Bernie >> Hillary on this score.
