by Peggy Barnett

Created on: July 23, 2008   Last Updated: November 08, 2008

It has been said that actions speak louder than words. In the 2008 Presidential Campaign, the American people have chosen two very different candidates, one, a man of action with a questionable sense of humor, the other, a man who has deliberately avoided action throughout his brief political career, who relies instead on his gift of gab, at least in American English. What would be the difference, in terms of U.S. foreign policy, between these two men, should one of them become President?

Life lessons are learned through experience and can affect the way that an individual views and responds to the world around him. In this election, both candidates carry scars from incidents which occurred abroad. The Republican candidate is a former military prisoner of war, who endured conditions not sanctioned by the Geneva Convention, and who returned afterwards to a country which did not embrace veterans of this war. Rather than become embittered by this experience, he became a U.S. Senator. Since U.S. relations with the country it once at war with have changed dramatically, as both countries have sought to resolve issues of importance to individuals in both countries, it must be assumed that the Republican candidate has positively come to terms with his experience, the country in question, and the American public. Since his experience occurred in the Far East, it seems reasonable to assume that his foreign policy in the Far East would be non-aggressive, but defensive of American interests there.

The Democratic candidate was brought, as a child, following the departure of his biological father from his life, as part of a new family, to live in a foreign country in which he felt somewhat isolated, linguistically, socially, and religiously. At an age at which invisibility is desired, he had to learn to cope with his unique physical visibility, in a staunchly Muslim country with strange social customs. Even though he as not the only member of his family to whom this may have happened, as it may also have happened to his mother, he lacked an adult's coping mechanisms. It is reputed not to have been the happiest of times in his then young life, as there were too many problems for the young man to grapple with effectively, including the fact that he was part of a multi-ethnic household in a non-multi-ethnic society, which may explain why his family moved him to multi-ethnically embracing Hawaii. Since childhood traumas sometimes last longer than they should, it is not surprising

• 1
• 2
• 3
• Next Page >>