CFR invited the presidential candidates challenging President Trump in the 2020 election to articulate their positions on twelve critical foreign policy issues. Candidates’ answers are posted exactly as they are received. View all questions here. 1. How, if at all, should China’s treatment of the Uighurs and the situation in Hong Kong affect broader U.S. policy toward China?  China is aggressively engaging in theft, practicing commercial espionage, and ignoring intellectual-property rights as well as trampling on human rights and democracy in their drive to dominate global markets. The US must maintain a strong position regarding China with regard to economics, politics, and human rights.  China’s treatment of the Uighurs and of Hong Kong reflect their aggressive drive for domination and their disdain for human rights and democracy. The United States needs to stand up for human rights and call out the gross violations of human rights committed by China. It’s a good thing that this week Secretary Pompeo denounced China’s treatment of the Uighurs. We should also be speaking out against the authoritarian push for greater control in Hong Kong where thousands of people are demonstrating for their democratic rights.   Additionally, the US has the power to prevent China from buying strategically important companies, which we have done through the Committee on Foreign Investment in the US (CFIUS). We should exercise this power more vigorously as we defend our economic interests and human rights for all.  2. Would you rejoin the 2015 Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA)? What changes to the existing agreement, if any, would you require before agreeing to rejoin the accord? I would rejoin the JCPOA, a historic achievement in multilateral diplomacy. Every IAEA report confirmed Iran's compliance. US withdrawal and severe sanctions violated the trust that had been painstakingly built. Rejoining the JCPOA will require healing from this rupture and rebuilding trust.  After the deal, Iranian moderates gained popularity and fundamentalists lost power. President Rouhani was elected to restore the economy and improve relationships with the West. Foreign Minister Zarif, who led negotiations, had a good relationship with then Secretary Kerry. This deal was intended as a first step toward improving relationships.  The Supreme Leader and hardliners opposed the deal. US withdrawal increases their popularity and justifies their mistrust of the US. Our sanctions are harming the Iranian people.  US propaganda exaggerates threats, and falsely claims the deal lets Iran get nuclear weapons within 10 years. This disregards the likelihood of changed dynamics and improved relationships. Iran is a potential ally against Sunni extremism with many common interests to build upon.  Over half of Iran’s graduate students are women. About 60% of the people are under 30. Many of them want normal relations with the West.  Iran is a political football. The UAE and Saudi Arabia do not want the US to improve relations with Iran and would like to provoke a war. It is said that the Saudis want to fight Iranians to the last American. We need to be careful to not be drawn into war by those who want us to fight Iranians for them. I would increase diplomacy, decrease tensions, and transform relations to create a context to address human rights and other issues. Sanctions relief and purchasing Air Buses would support travel, entrepreneurship and normalization. 3. Would you sign an agreement with North Korea that entailed partial sanctions relief in exchange for some dismantling of its nuclear weapons program but not full denuclearization?  Nuclear weapons are a symptom of conflict, fear, insecurity, and a drive to dominate. Denuclearization will follow more naturally and easily with decreased tensions and improved relationships. Sanctions are a form of economic warfare with a high rate of failure. Punitive, coercive policies do not always achieve the best outcomes. Sanctions harm innocent people, escalate conflicts and can put us on a path to war. They can provoke targeted populations to rally round the flag, support hardliners and inflame resentment against America.  We can achieve superior outcomes with clear-eyed respect and steps towards thawing the ice. This could help improve our relationship with Kim Jong Un and de-escalate threats from North Korea.  Actions that can be taken to reduce tension and build a stable and lasting peace on the Korean Peninsula including the following: Principled progress on diplomacy, including citizen diplomacy A political statement declaring an end to the Korean War, replacing the armistice agreement with a peace regime Support South Korean efforts to improve inter-Korean relations through confidence-building and tension reduction measures Family reunions Inter-Korean economic, cultural and civic projects Humanitarian relief efforts Inclusion of women, youth, and civil society in negotiations Joint US-DPRK trust-building programs continuing POW/MIA remains repatriation reunions between long-divided North Korean and Korean American families. Action might also include partial sanctions relief in exchange for some serious dismantling of their nuclear weapons program, as steps towards de-escalation and improved relations.  Negotiating a peace agreement would end the Korean War and ease denuclearization. It could shift resources away from endless wars to human needs, improving life for millions of North Koreans and reducing a global threat. 4. What, if any, steps would you take to counter Russian aggression against Ukraine? Part of the Russian aggression against Ukraine involves the Russian interference with the Ukrainian elections. Methods that Russia used against the United States in the 2016 election were first used against the Ukrainians. Russia launched a cyber Pearl Harbor attack against the United States and successfully interfered in our elections. I support a vigorous investigation into the Russian interference in elections in the US, Ukraine and Europe, and massively strengthened cyber-security for US elections. 5. Would you commit to the full withdrawal of U.S. troops from Afghanistan by the end of your first term, or would you require certain conditions be met before doing so? Updated August 16, 2019: The US government is negotiating with the Taliban, discussing US withdrawal of troops from Afghanistan in exchange for the Taliban’s agreement to renounce al-Qaeda and prevent al-Qaeda from operating in areas under Taliban control. My concern has to do with the rights of women, towards whom the Taliban have been known for a history of brutality. When elected, I will talk with the appropriate voices for women in Afghanistan, and factor their protection and rights into all plans for withdrawal. The protection of women and women’s rights must be part of any agreement. Original Response: The US war in Afghanistan has raged for almost 17 years at enormous expense of blood and treasure. About 15,000 troops are still deployed with no hope of a military victory and no clarity on what an end game looks like. I would confer with the women of Afghanistan to get their sense of what’s needed in their country. My aim would be a safe withdrawal of all US troops as soon as possible. We should consider some kind of UN or nonviolent people force that could assist in the transition. 6. Given the assassination of Jamal Khashoggi and Saudi Arabia’s involvement in the civil war in Yemen, what changes, if any, would you make to U.S. policy toward Saudi Arabia? The United States needs to take a much stronger position with regard to Saudi Arabia. Although great measures were taken to distract the American people, it was mainly Saudis who attacked the Twin Towers on 9/11, not Iraqis.  When the US attacked Iraq, we decimated Iraq and strengthened the hand of Iran in the Iraq-Iran regional contest for power. The Saudis are now competing with Iran for regional hegemony. The Saudi-led genocidal war in Yemen is being fought with US support. U.S. Air Force pilots are reportedly providing in-air refueling so Saudi and UAE warplanes can bomb Yemen, and US special forces are fighting alongside Saudi troops in what the New York Times called “a continuing escalation of America’s secret wars.” We must stop US involvement in the war in Yemen, as Congress has voted to do. The Constitution gives the power of declaring war to Congress and we must respect the authority of Congress in this regard.  We should reject all arms sales to Saudi Arabia and the UAE.  We should press for an independent criminal investigation into the killing of journalist Jamal Khashoggi including any role that Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman may have played in his death, as called for by the UN expert on extrajudicial killings, Agnes Callamard, after her five month investigation revealed the operation was carefully planned and endorsed by high level Saudis. American intelligence officials have concluded that the Crown Prince ordered the killing. 7. Do you support a two-state solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and, if so, how would you go about trying to achieve it? Yes. The United States should have an equal and simultaneous support for both the legitimate security concerns of Israel, and the human rights, dignity and economic opportunities of the Palestinian people. I will be a president who listens deeply to both the Israelis and the Palestinians. Leaders of the Palestinian Authority will know that I hear them and understand their plight, yet nothing is going to sway me from my commitment to the legitimate security of Israel. Israeli leaders will know that I hear them and understand their plight, yet nothing is going to sway me from my commitment to the human rights, dignity and economic hopes of the Palestinian people.  I do not believe the settlements on the West Bank are legal. Also, I would rescind the president's affirmation of sovereignty of Israel over the Golan Heights. I understand the occupation of the Golan Heights, but only until there is a stable government in Syria with whom one can negotiate. According to international law, the occupation of a territory does not give the occupying country a right to annex it. Also, according to international law, the resources of the occupied territory are to be used for the good of those living there.  I also do not support the blockade of Gaza. I will use pressure afforded me as president of the United States to exert pressure on Israel to restart talks on a two-state solution. 8. What, if any, additional steps should the United States take to remove Nicolás Maduro from power in Venezuela? The US government - including under Obama - has wanted regime change in Venezuela since at least 2002 (year of the failed military coup against Chávez), and the efforts it’s undertaken to remove the leftwing governments of Chávez and now Maduro have consistently made things worse in Venezuela and have arguably harmed US regional interests.  The US government has for years supported radical elements of the opposition, those that support destabilization campaigns and military coups, rather than more moderate factions that support electoral solutions, and in so doing have exacerbated the internal polarization in the country which has, in turn, contributed to the current political crisis. The Trump administration’s support for Guaidó, who - until recently was calling for a military coup against Maduro and refusing all dialogue - is an example of this counterproductive approach.  Since 2017 the Trump administration has been trying to force Maduro out through increasingly damaging economic sanctions that have made the country’s economic crisis worse and generated higher levels of migration out of the country, creating enormous difficulties for neighboring countries. The end result has been more human suffering - including thousands of avoidable deaths - and, ironically, the consolidation of Maduro’s rule over the country, as the lower income chavista base has rallied in his defense against “imperial intervention.” If the US really wants to see a peaceful political transition in Venezuela it needs to help create the conditions for effective dialogue, which means supporting moderate factions on both sides that seek a peaceful transition and supporting existing efforts to promote dialogue, in particular those being led at the moment - with some success - by the Norwegian government.  The historical record shows that when the US government engages in aggressive intervention to remove a leader that it dislikes, its efforts generally backfire or lead to unforeseen political and social developments that are not easy to resolve. The best policy in Venezuela and most places is to support efforts that allow the country’s citizens to decide on their political future (even if it’s not exactly the sort of future that the US favors). 9. By 2050, Africa will account for 25 percent of the world’s population according to projections by the United Nations. What are the implications of this demographic change for the United States, and how should we adjust our policies to anticipate them? We are wrong to ignore Africa because it is the continent with the fastest growing population. In a generation, Nigeria may have a larger population than the US. While some African countries manage their economies well, others have poor economies and risk becoming failed states. Failing states can become grounds for terrorist groups such as Boko Haram in northern Nigeria, for epidemics as was seen with the Ebola virus in Eastern Congo or sources of refugees seeking political asylum. Ignoring Africa means ignoring real risks to our security. At the same time, a growing Africa also means opportunities we should not ignore. Angola has a president who is reversing decades of corruption. Algeria and Sudan are seeking peaceful transitions or power, and South Africa is struggling to re-establish economic growth and build opportunity for its people. In each case the United States could have been involved in these positive developments but was not. 10. Under what circumstances, if any, would you support the United States joining the Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership (CPTPP), formerly the Trans-Pacific Partnership?  The TPP would need greater protections for workers and the environment for me to support it. 11. How would you discourage the proliferation of coal-fired power plants in developing countries? We have the opportunity to leap frog over fossil fuels and dirty energy and build clean renewable energy systems in developing countries. The US should redirect subsidies away from fossil fuels including coal and invest them in building renewable energy power, both in the US and abroad. 12. What has been the greatest foreign policy accomplishment of the United States since World War II? What has been the biggest mistake? Accomplishment: the Marshall Plan Mistake: Nuclear weapons escalation   This project was made possible in part by a grant from Carnegie Corporation of New York. View All Candidates

Update: Elizabeth Warren announced on March 5, 2020, that she was ending her campaign. As politicians, Ronald Reagan and Elizabeth Warren are opposites. He wanted to unleash the power of the market; she wants to curtail its abuses. But for all of their policy differences, the two share one thing in common—both switched political parties. Reagan joined the Republican Party in his early fifties. Before then he was a registered Democrat. “I didn't leave the Democratic Party,” he liked to say. “The party left me.” Warren made the opposite journey. She was a registered Republican until her forties. Why? She says it’s “because I thought that those were the people who best supported markets. I think that is not true anymore.” So did Warren vote for Reagan? For years she declined to say. Now she says that the last GOP nominee she voted for was Gerald Ford in 1976. If Warren succeeds in becoming president, she no doubt hopes to have a presidency as consequential as Reagan’s. The Basics Name: Elizabeth Ann Warren Date of Birth: June 22, 1949 Place of Birth: Oklahoma City, Oklahoma Religion: Raised Methodist; Attends various Christian churches Political Party: Democrat Marital Status: Divorced (Jim Warren); Married (Bruce Mann) Children: Amelia (47) and Alexander (42) Alma Mater: Attended George Washington University; University of Houston (BS); Rutgers School of Law (JD) Career: Law professor (1979-2012), Chair of the Congressional Oversight Panel for the Troubled Asset Relief Program (2008-2010), Special Advisor for the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (2010-2011), U.S. Senator (2013-Present) Campaign Website: https://elizabethwarren.com/ Twitter Handle: @ewarren Warren’s Announcement Warren launched her campaign in Lawrence, Massachusetts, an old mill town thirty-five miles north of Boston. Back in 1912, Lawrence made national headlines when workers at the Everett Mill walked off the job in the so-called Bread and Roses Strike after their wages were cut. So it wasn’t an accident that Warren, who is pitching herself as a defender of the working class, announced her run in Lawrence. She walked out to the podium with Dolly Parton's song “9 to 5” playing on the speakers. Warren called President Donald Trump "the latest—and most extreme—symptom of what's gone wrong in America." She said that undoing the acts of this administration won’t be enough and that there needs to be “big, structural change” to the “rigged” system that benefits the wealthy and the powerful. She laid out her economic platform, which includes a wealth tax, Medicare for All, and a Green New Deal. She promised to limit the power of big corporations by breaking up monopolies and making it easier for workers to join unions. She also vowed to fight political corruption in Washington, strengthen voting rights, and reform the criminal justice system. What she didn’t mention was foreign policy. Warren’s Story Warren was born Elizabeth Herring in Oklahoma City and grew up there and in Norman. She was the youngest of four children who she says “grew up on the ragged edge of the middle class.” That was in part because her father suffered a heart attack that saddled the family with extensive medical bills. Warren nonetheless excelled in school. She became a state debate champion, earned her high-school diploma when she was just sixteen, and was awarded a full scholarship to attend George Washington University. She left GW after two years to marry her high school sweetheart, Jim Warren. But she didn’t give up on her studies. She earned a bachelor’s degree in speech pathology at the University of Houston. She was the first member of her family to graduate college. Warren moved to New Jersey when her husband was transferred there for work. She had a baby and initially decided to be a stay-at-home mom. After two years, she enrolled at Rutgers School of Law. That led to a thirty-year career as a law professor that took her to Rutgers’ Newark School of Law, the University of Houston Law Center, the University of Texas, the University of Michigan, the University of Pennsylvania, and finally Harvard. Her specialty was bankruptcy and commercial law. Much of her work highlighted how U.S. laws often hurt working- and middle-class Americans. Beginning in the 1990s, Warren’s stature in the legal profession led to invitations to advise and serve on government commissions. In 2008, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid asked Warren to chair the Congressional Oversight Panel charged with monitoring the $700 billion bank bailout known as the Troubled Asset Relief Program. Two years later, President Barack Obama appointed her as Assistant to the President and Special Advisor to the Secretary of the Treasury on the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB), an agency that she had proposed creating in 2007, before the financial crisis. She was rumored to be the pick to become the CFPB’s first head, but Republican opposition dissuaded the White House from nominating her. The visibility that Warren gained from her Washington service fueled her political ambitions. In 2011, she declared herself a candidate for the Senate seat once held by Edward Kennedy. Her YouTube video explaining why calling for higher taxes wasn’t class warfare went viral. She defeated Senator Scott Brown with nearly 54 percent of the vote and won re-election in 2018 with 60 percent. Because her term doesn’t expire until 2025, her 2020 run is not jeopardizing her Senate seat. Despite considerable urging from her supporters, Warren passed on running for president in 2016. She instead campaigned for Hillary Clinton, saying "when Donald says he'll make America great, he means greater for rich guys just like Donald Trump." She gave the keynote address on the first night of the Democratic National Convention in Philadelphia. She railed against big banks, corruption, and deregulation, while highlighting that she was “the daughter of a janitor, a daughter who believes in an America of opportunity.” In the Senate, Warren serves on the Armed Services, Banking, and Health, Education, Labor and Pensions committees as well as on the Special Committee on Aging. Warren’s Message Warren’s core message is that “America’s middle class is under attack. How did we get here? Billionaires and big corporations decided they wanted more of the pie, and they enlisted politicians to cut them a fatter slice.” She intends to change that by pursuing policies like a wealth tax and higher income taxes. Her critics say this amounts to socialism. Warren’s response is straightforward: “I am a capitalist…. I believe in markets…. But only fair markets, markets with rules. Markets without rules is about the rich take it all, it’s about the powerful get all of it. And that’s what’s gone wrong in America.” Warren’s Foreign Policy Views Warren’s conviction that elites have stuck it to working-class Americans shapes her approach to foreign policy. Last November she explained her foreign policy agenda on the pages of Foreign Affairs. (A companion speech at American University covered much the same territory.) She argued that Americans like to tell themselves how “we built a liberal international order…. But in recent decades, Washington’s focus has shifted from policies that benefit everyone to policies that benefit a handful of elites.” In particular, “international economic policies and trade deals have worked gloriously well for elites around the world, they have left working class people discouraged and disaffected.” The solution is “to pursue international economic policies that benefit all Americans, not merely an elite few.” The accuracy of this diagnosis of America’s ills can be debated. But Warren clearly sees foreign policy through an economic lens rather than a security lens. Her showcase essay made no mention of NATO or alliances more generally, and it said nothing about what security threats she thinks the United States faces around the world. Last month Warren laid out her preferred trade policy, or what she calls her “economic patriotism agenda.” Politico pointed out that the plan “is closer to Donald Trump’s agenda than Barack Obama’s.” Warren proposes to change both how trade policy is made in the United States and what Washington asks of its trading partners. In terms of the former, she wants more public involvement and more transparency, to the point of publishing the drafts of potential trade deals. In terms of the latter, she would hold negotiating partners to stringent labor and environmental standards. Warren’s plan has attracted criticism, including from experts sympathetic to her calls to curb the power of multinational corporations. The critics argue that the transparency she seeks will make agreements impossible to negotiate—trade partners won’t budge if their concessions become news before any deal is final—and her standards for entering into negotiations are so high that the United States doesn’t meet them itself. Perhaps more fundamentally, the premise of her trade plan, which is reflected in the title she gave it, “Trade—On Our Terms,” is flawed. As reactions to Trump’s trade policies show, America’s trading partners aren’t reacting to Washington’s demands by negotiating on its terms but by negotiating trade agreements among themselves  that increasingly leave American exporters on the outside looking in. Given how Warren views trade policy in general, it’s not surprising that she opposes the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) or has said positive things about Trump’s turn to tariffs. She thinks that TPP is yet another example of multinational corporations, and particularly pharmaceutical companies, getting their way at the expense of ordinary Americans. As for tariffs, her view is that “when President Trump says he's putting tariffs on the table, I think tariffs are one part of reworking our trade policy overall.” Her main complaint with Trump’s tariffs on steel and aluminum is that the administration is using exemptions from the tariffs to reward friends and punish adversaries. Of course, that criticism can be leveled against all tariff schedules with any flexibility—they create real or perceived opportunities for political favoritism. On many other issues Warren strikes the same themes as other progressive Democrats. That is certainly true of climate change. She thinks it is the biggest geopolitical threat facing the United States. She supports a Green New Deal and has released five plans for tackling the problem. She laments that “the United States is a leader in climate policy. It's just leading in the wrong direction right now." It’s also true of American combat operations overseas. When asked if there will still be U.S. troops in Afghanistan by the end of a first Warren term, she says, “No.” She approved of Trump’s decision last December, subsequently reversed, to withdraw troops from Syria, though with the caveat that “when you withdraw, you gotta withdraw as part of a plan.” She voted against the sense-of-the-Senate resolution that Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell offered warning against a precipitous withdrawal of U.S. troops from Syria. Warren likewise opposes U.S. support for the Saudi-led intervention in Yemen. In all, she wants to reduce the U.S. military presence in the Middle East because “to continue to keep troops and more troops forever and ever and ever in that part of the world, it is not working and pretending that somehow in the future it is going to work by some unmeasured version of it—it’s a form of fantasy that we simply can’t afford to continue to engage in.” Like most of her Democratic rivals, Warren hasn’t discussed the likely consequences of a U.S. retreat from the Middle East or made the case that they will be better for America’s security than the current state of affairs. Warren opposes Trump’s decision to withdraw from the Iran nuclear deal, saying it “breaks our word, hurts our credibility with our allies, empowers Iranian hardliners, and doesn't make us any safer here at home.” She’s equally critical of Trump’s diplomacy toward North Korea. After Trump met with Kim Jong-un at the DMZ in June she tweeted: “Our President shouldn’t be squandering American influence on photo ops and exchanging love letters with a ruthless dictator.” Warren says she would focus her initial diplomatic energies on striking a deal to limit North Korea’s weapons and put off the effort to cut North Korea’s arsenal to a later round of talks. Warren hasn’t said what she would offer Pyongyang, or threaten it with, to get the deal she wants. Warren similarly opposes Trump’s decision to leave the Intermediate Nuclear Forces Treaty: “We should be holding Russia accountable for its violations—not torching the treaty that has prevented a dangerous arms race for over 30 years.” She proposes to follow three core nuclear security principles while in office: no new nuclear weapons; “more international arms control, not less,” which would include “extending New START through 2026”; and no first use, the idea that “deterrence is the sole purpose of our arsenal,” and as such, the United States will use nuclear weapons only in retaliation for their use. Warren says she wants to re-build America’s alliances. After last year’s NATO summit, she tweeted “America is strongest when we work together with our allies–including the 28 NATO members who share our democratic values. Undermining NATO is a gift to Putin that @realDonaldTrump seems all too happy to give.” Whether Warren’s more restrained and protectionist foreign policy will rally America’s allies or alarm them is an open question. But she certainly wants to put more effort and more resources into U.S. diplomacy. Among other things, she proposes to double the size of the foreign service and the Peace Corps, open diplomatic posts in underserved areas, invest more resources in language training, and create the diplomatic equivalent of ROTC on college campuses. More on Warren Warren is an academic, so she has written and edited a lot of books, mostly specialized treatises with titles such as The Laws of Debtors and Creditors. She wrote a book in 2003 with her daughter, Amelia, called The Two-Income Trap: Why Middle-Class Mothers and Fathers Are Going Broke. Warren’s latest book is This Fight Is Our Fight: The Battle to Save America's Middle Class, published in 2017. Vogue profiled Warren in 2010 when she was running the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, saying she was a “grandmother with big blue eyes, soft blonde hair, and the honeyed accent of the Oklahoma plains,” but also “something of a knife in the gut.” POLITICO Magazine examined Warren’s rapid rise in politics, saying that “in 2004, she was a respected but little-known academic with an obscure specialty. Then Dr. Phil called.” POLITICO Magazine also charted Warren’s transformation from “diehard conservative” to the “woman now at the forefront of the progressive wing of the Democratic Party.” The New Yorker’s profile of Warren described her as “one of the most vital voices in American politics. Her participation in the Democratic primary can only enrich it.” Vanity Fair concluded that Warren is “quite skilled at drilling down to a simple, comprehensible point, usually having to do with economic justice. Her anecdotes go over well.” The Washington Post has fact-checked the controversy over Warren’s claims of Native American ancestry. Warren answered eighteen questions for the New York Times. When she was asked where she would go on her first international trip as president, she answered: “I think I’d go to Central America.” Corey Cooper, Brenden Ebertz, and Elizabeth Lordi assisted in the preparation of this post.

Update: Beto O'Rourke announced on November 1, 2019, that he was ending his campaign. When Richard Nixon lost California’s governor’s race in 1962, political pundits declared his dream of becoming president dead. After all, winning presidential candidates usually come off of electoral victories and not electoral defeats. But six years later, Nixon proved the pundits wrong and won the presidency. One Democrat hoping to tap that Nixon magic is Beto O’Rourke. He ran a surprisingly tough campaign in 2018 against incumbent Texas Senator Ted Cruz, sparking talk that deeply red Texas might be turning purple if not blue. O’Rourke came up short in the end, but his strong showing opened up the door to a presidential bid. If O’Rourke does repeat Nixon’s feat, he would become the first president since James Garfield to have served in the U.S. House but not also been a governor, senator, or vice president. The Basics Name: Robert (Beto) Francis O'Rourke Date of Birth: September 26, 1972 Place of Birth: El Paso, Texas Religion: Roman Catholic Political Party: Democratic Party Marital Status: Married (Amy Hoover Sanders) Children: Ulysses (12), Molly (10), and Henry (8) Alma Mater: Columbia University (BA) Career: El Paso City Councilmember (2005-2011); U.S. Representative (2013-2019) Campaign Website: https://betoorourke.com/ Twitter Handle: @BetoORourke O’Rourke’s Announcement O’Rourke’s announced his entry into the presidential race on March 14 by releasing a video on social media. In the video he argued that “the challenges we face right now; the interconnected crises in our economy, our climate, and our democracy have never been greater,” adding “they will either consume us or afford us the greatest opportunity to unleash the genius of the United States of America.” He also highlighted the need to “reassert our global leadership and end these decades-long wars and be there for everyone woman and man who’ve served in them.” I am running to serve you as the next president. The challenges we face are the greatest in living memory. No one person can meet them on their own. Only this country can do that, and only if we build a movement that includes all of us. Say you're in: https://t.co/EKLdkVET2u pic.twitter.com/lainXyvG2n — Beto O'Rourke (@BetoORourke) March 14, 2019 O’Rourke followed up the video release two weeks later with a campaign kickoff event in El Paso. Some 6,000 people turned out for his speech. Unlike many of his Democratic rivals, O’Rourke discussed foreign policy in his announcement speech: And when it comes to international leadership—this current administration, responsible for spurning our true friends and alliances forged in sacrifice from the generations before ours, squandering a standing this country has enjoyed for nearly 80 years, must be replaced by an administration that strengthens our historic friendships, earns the respect of the world not just in how we treat people in other countries but how we treat people in our own country and brings the world together around otherwise intractable problems—from building on the Paris agreement to achieve even bolder action on climate, to pursuing nuclear disarmament, to ending our wars and finding peaceful, diplomatic paths forward. He also addressed the refugee problem at the southern border saying “we must focus on this hemisphere and once again make it a foreign policy priority of this country—we can either address the problems in Central America at our border or help the people of Central America address them at home. This country can once again take its place as the indispensable nation, doing what no other country can, for ourselves and for the world.” O’Rourke’s Story O’Rourke was born in El Paso, Texas. His father was a popular local politician and his mother owned a furniture store. After completing his sophomore year at a high school in El Paso, O’Rourke transferred to Woodberry Forest, an all-male boarding school in Virginia. He then went to Columbia University, where he rowed crew and majored in film before switching to English. After graduating from Columbia in 1995, O’Rourke moved to Albuquerque. He worked part-time jobs and formed a punk-rock band called the Swedes. He later returned to New York where he nannied for a wealthy Upper West Side family, worked as an art mover, and helped at his uncle’s startup Internet-service provider. He moved back to El Paso in 1997, working at his mom’s store and playing drums in a band called Sheeps. He also launched his own web-design company, Stanton Street Technology Group, and started an online news magazine about El Paso. After his father was killed in 2001 while riding a bicycle, O’Rourke started an alternative weekly newspaper called Stanton Street. It only lasted fifteen issues, but it sparked his interest in local politics. He won a seat on the El Paso City Council in 2005. O’Rourke ran for Congress in 2012, defeating an eight-term incumbent. In Congress, O’Rourke was to the right of many of his fellow Democrats. O’Rourke gained national visibility with his 2018 Senate run. Cruz had defeated his Democratic opponent in 2012 by nearly sixteen percentage points. O’Rourke cut that margin of victory to just two percentage points and raised more than $80 million along the way. O’Rourke’s Message   O’Rourke is running on optimism about what America can do when it unleashes “the genius” of its people. He says that his campaign is “for everyone in this country, for all of America...no one left behind,” and that it is all about bringing people together. He thinks that the key to his success will be his ability “to listen to people, to help bring people together to do something that is thought to be impossible.” He is not concerned about finding a clear path to the White House because he knows one is there—“I just feel it.” As O’Rourke charts his course he has vowed to run a positive campaign, promising to never “demean or vilify another candidate or really anybody.” O’Rourke said at the start of his campaign that he wanted to highlight El Paso during his travels because "we have something very special here in El Paso, and I'm excited to bring that to this conversation and to share our perspective from the U.S.-Mexico border with the rest of the country." To his horror and the horror of all Americans, El Paso vaulted into the national conversation earlier this month after a white supremacist killed twenty-two people and injured two dozen more at a local Walmart. O’Rourke was in Las Vegas at the time and was visibly (and understandably) shaken as he announced he was suspending his campaigning to return to El Paso. He subsequently said that part of the blame for the shooting lays with President Trump for repeatedly using language that is “promoting racism.” O’Rourke’s Foreign Policy Views O’Rourke believes that “our existential threat is climate change.” His first campaign policy proposal was a ten-year, five-trillion-dollar plan that would recommit the United States to the Paris climate agreement and seek to produce zero-net carbon emissions by 2050. The plan had some specifics, like ending government fossil-fuel leases, but it also left unanswered a number of important questions, like whether it would impose a carbon tax. Many climate activists called the plan ambitious, but some complained it was not ambitious enough. Like many of his Democratic rivals, O’Rourke worries about America’s “forever wars.” He has pledged to “end the wars that we are in” and vowed that no U.S. troops will be in Afghanistan by the end of his first term. In 2014, he was one of two House Democrats who voted against an aid package for Ukraine, which included $1 billion in loan guarantees and about $150 million in direct U.S. assistance, as well as sanctions on Russian officials. O’Rourke defended his opposition to the aid package on the grounds that a yes vote would have meant “us becoming a participant in yet another war” and that he didn’t see how “deepening U.S. military involvement in Ukraine is going to solve that country's problems. I’m not down with more war for the United States.” He says that as president he will “support Ukraine’s efforts to defend itself against Russian aggression” and stresses that the way to do that is by “helping Ukraine build institutions that will stabilize its democracy” rather than by providing it with military aid.  More broadly, O’Rourke thinks that the way to avoid forever wars is to take issues of war and peace to Congress. He told Stephen Colbert that “before we send another service member in harm’s way” he would get congressional authorization. “It’s the only way we stop this country from going to war without end.” This formulation overlooks one thing—Congress authorized the very forever wars that O’Rourke, and many Americans, oppose. How to write use-of-force authorization that both empowers and constrains the presidency is a circle that Congress has not yet found a way to square. O’Rourke would prefer to privilege diplomacy over military operations: “the much tougher but far more important work to do is to lead with diplomacy, holding the card of military involvement as the last resort.” O’Rourke backed the Iran nuclear deal because “without firing a single shot, without sacrificing the life of a single U.S. service member, it was able to stop the country of Iran from pursuing nuclear weapons.” He believes that Trump’s decision to leave the deal has weakened the United States and made conflict more likely in the future. O’Rourke’s views on trade don’t track with those of many self-described progressive Democrats, though they do with Democratic voters more generally. He supports NAFTA. He thinks that after twenty-five years it needed to be updated, but he doesn’t think “we had to threaten to leave NAFTA to improve NAFTA.” O’Rourke voted to give the Obama administration fast-track authority to negotiate the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP), though while he was a member of Congress he never committed to voting for the deal that was struck. He said during his 2018 Senate race that he would have voted against it if it had come to a vote because it didn’t do enough to protect worker rights. He says that as president he will not join the successor agreement to TPP “unless we are able to negotiate substantial improvements to protect workers, the environment, and human rights” and get “effective enforcement mechanisms.” O’Rourke opposed Trump’s decision to impose tariffs on the import of steel and aluminum as well as his imposition of tariffs on Chinese imports. While acknowledging that Trump has “legitimate” complaints about other countries’ trade policies, he doesn’t think the United States should “hold other countries of the world accountable…at the expense of our farmers, our growers, our producers, those who are fundamental to the success of the U.S. economy.” More on O’Rourke O’Rourke co-authored a book in 2011 with El Paso City Representative Susie Byrd, called Dealing Death and Drugs: The Big Business of Dope in the U.S. and Mexico. The book criticizes the War on Drugs and makes the case for decriminalizing marijuana. Buzzfeed profiled O’Rourke during his 2018 Senate campaign and called him “a prolific, prodigious sweater,” adding “Rather than recoiling, his supporters see it as a badge of honor—proof of how relentlessly he’s campaigning to win over every voter in the second-largest state in the union.” Vanity Fair profiled O’Rourke as he entered the presidential race and described his lack of specificity on many issues as a strength rather than a weakness because “positions on issues matter, of course, but they aren’t everything. Indeed, in the Trump era it may well be that harnessing intense voter passion is more important when facing a bombastic cult of personality who draws on Fox News rage-ratings.” The profile also created a bit of a fuss because O’Rourke was quoted as saying “Man, I’m just born to be in it” when talking about the 2020 race. Critics said the comment was presumptuous and suggested male privilege. O’Rourke expressed regret for the remark, which made the magazine’s cover. Just two-and-a-half months after O’Rourke entered the race and with his failure to climb up the polls, the New Yorker asked “Can Beto Bounce Back?” The conclusion was that “the evidence is piling up” that O’Rourke’s preference for driving himself from town to town to meet voters and listen to their concerns “will not work on the national level, at least not this year. To have any chance, he must turn to television, where empathy, careful listening, and voracious curiosity are not the coin of the realm.” O’Rourke appeared on a CNN Town Hall in May, replicating for a national audience the more than 150 town halls he had held since announcing his candidacy. The Washington Post profiled O’Rourke and his wife, Amy, concluding that “they are at once the most modern and most conventional of the families running for president in 2020. They are pioneers of social media, broadcasting much of their lives in real time; affluent, white and traditional—the political equivalent of ‘The Truman Show.’” Politico asked, what is O’Rourke’s most distinctive policy position? Its answer: “To be determined. There’s no signature issue yet, no single policy proposal sparking his campaign. Convening crowds—and listening to them—is the central thrust of his early presidential bid.” O’Rourke answered eighteen questions for the New York Times. One of the questions was where he would take his first international trip. His answer? “I would go to Mexico, our most important neighbor.” CFR asked O’Rourke twelve foreign policy questions. He cited “shaping the global order following World War II” as America’s greatest foreign policy accomplishment since World War II. In contrast, “Our greatest foreign policy mistake was the invasion of Iraq in 2003.”  Corey Cooper and Elizabeth Lordi assisted in the preparation of this post.

The integration of the internet and cyberspace into democratic politics has contributed to a crisis in Anglo-American democracy, with an intensely polarized population, constantly distracted political debate, a deliberately misinformed body politic, and dysfunctional political institutions. The United States and UK have few options to prevent cyber-facilitated disruption.    

Update: Bill de Blasio announced on September 20, 2019, that he was ending his campaign. Height is an advantage in presidential politics. Throughout American history, the taller of the two major party candidates has won the popular vote two-thirds of the time. That’s good news for Bill de Blasio, the mayor of New York and 2020 presidential candidate. He is 6’5” tall. That is taller than every one of his Democratic rivals and two inches taller than President Donald Trump. Indeed, if de Blasio makes it to the White House, he would be the tallest president ever, edging out Abraham Lincoln by an inch. Of course, height isn’t necessarily destiny. Take the 2016 presidential nomination races. Hillary Clinton was an inch shorter than Bernie Sanders, and Trump was shorter than both Jeb Bush and George Pataki. The Basics Name: Warren de Blasio (born Warren Wilhelm Jr.) Date of Birth: May 8, 1961 Place of Birth: Manhattan, New York Religion: None Political Party: Democratic Party Marital Status: Chirlane McCray (m. 1994) Children: Chiara (24), Dante (21) Alma Mater: New York University (BA), Columbia University (MIA) Career: Political organizer and politician Campaign Website: https://billdeblasio.com Twitter Handles: @BilldeBlasio & @NYCMayor De Blasio’s Announcement De Blasio announced his candidacy on May 16 by releasing a video titled “Working People First.” The video is blunt about what he sees as America’s challenge: “There’s plenty of money in this country. It’s just in the wrong hands.” He says Americans feel as if they are “stuck, or even going backwards” while the “rich got richer.” He paints Trump as a “bully” and says “I have beaten him before and I will beat him again.” The video doesn’t mention foreign policy. De Blasio followed up the video’s release by appearing on ABC’s “Good Morning America” with his wife Chirlane McCray to discuss his vision for America. Host George Stephanopoulos pointed out that polls showed that 76 percent of New Yorkers opposed de Blasio’s run for the White House. The mayor dismissed the numbers and said he was eager to take on Trump, whom he called “Con Don.” Once again, foreign policy didn’t come up. The announcement was supposed to be a surprise, but things didn’t go as planned. The day before de Blasio was set to announce, an enterprising high-school student in St. Louis noticed that the Iowan Woodbury County Democratic Party had posted an invitation on Facebook to a meeting with de Blasio in “Sioux City is his first stop on his Presidential announcement tour.” The student tweeted the post. The tweet went viral. Reporters who had been told of de Blasio’s plans on the condition they not report on them until he announced, broke the press embargo. Those news leaks in turn gave de Blasio’s critics in New York City a heads up. While he was on the “Good Morning America” set, protesters were standing outside chanting “Liar!” De Blasio’s Story De Blasio was born Warren Wilhelm Jr. in New York City. His parents moved to Cambridge, Massachusetts, in 1966, and divorced a year later. When de Blasio was eighteen, his father committed suicide while battling lung cancer. De Blasio changed his surname to de Blasio-Wilhelm in 1983 to recognize that his mother and her extended family had largely raised him. In 2001, he formally adopted de Blasio as his surname. De Blasio’s time in Cambridge explains why he is an anomaly among New York mayors when it comes to sports fandom; he roots for the Red Sox. (His predecessor as mayor, Michael Bloomberg, grew up in nearby by Medford, Massachusetts, but rooted for the Yankees while mayor.) After graduating from Cambridge’s Rindge and Latin High School, de Blasio returned to New York City. He attended New York University and majored in metropolitan studies. He then earned a master’s degree in international affairs at Columbia University. After a brief time working in Maryland as a political organizer on Central America issues, de Blasio returned to New York for good. He first worked for a nonprofit dedicated to improving health care in Central America. In 1989, he volunteered to work on the campaign of David Dinkins, the first and so far New York’s only African-American mayor. Dinkins won, and de Blasio was soon a mayoral aide. While working at City Hall, de Blasio met his wife, who is African American. The couple recall having been taunted for their interracial relationship and facing initial resistance from their families. In 1997, de Blasio was appointed as the regional director for HUD for New York and New Jersey under Bill Clinton. He went on to manage Hillary Clinton’s successful 2000 U.S. Senate campaign. De Blasio decided to run on his own in 2002, winning a seat on the New York City Council. In 2009, he was elected New York City’s Public Advocate. He used that post to criticize Bloomberg’s education and housing policies. Then in 2013, he won the race to succeed Bloomberg. He was re-elected in 2017. New Yorkers are split on how well de Blasio is doing his job. He is far more popular among black voters than white or Asian voters. He has some significant policy accomplishments, including a $15-an-hour minimum wage, universal pre-K, and expanding health care. Many of these achievements came during his first term. He has also rubbed many New Yorkers the wrong way. As one story put it, “he can come off as sanctimonious, arrogant, stubborn, and preachy about the gravity and scope of what he’s doing.” An example his critics often use of his supposed arrogance is that he travels eleven miles every day from Gracie Mansion, the mayor’s official residence, to work out at a Brooklyn Y.M.C.A. He doesn’t take the subway, but goes via a gas-guzzling SUV that requires a police escort. The trip frequently causes traffic jams. De Blasio speaks Italian and has offered to do interviews in Italian. De Blasio’s Message De Blasio’s campaign slogan is “Working People First.” He says he is fighting for the middle class, especially “working families,” and that “everyday Americans are getting screwed.” He touts what he has accomplished in New York and promises to bring it to the rest of the country. At the core of his agenda is taxing extreme wealth and extreme income. De Blasio’s Foreign Policy Views De Blasio’s career has focused on New York City issues, so he doesn’t have an extensive record on national security and foreign policy. His campaign website has a policies page, but it lists only two policy categories: “The de Blasio Fair Share Tax Plan” and the “21st Century Workers’ Bill of Rights.” Neither discusses foreign policy. But before turning his focus to New York City politics, his first interest was Central America. During the 1980s he supported the Sandinista National Liberation Front and opposed the Reagan administration’s support for the contras. He and his wife honeymooned in Cuba, which was illegal for Americans at the time. The campaign has given de Blasio opportunities to sketch out his foreign policy views. During the first round of Democratic debates, he said that Russia was America’s greatest geopolitical challenge “because they’re trying to undermine our democracy and they’ve been doing a pretty damn good job of it.” De Blasio has declined to join with most of his fellow self-identified progressive candidates in pledging to remove U.S. troops from Afghanistan. He thinks it is a war that has “gone on too long” and he hopes one day to remove all of our troops. But he thinks it is unwise to commit to a troop withdrawal before a peace deal is in place. When a reporter pressed him to give a yes/no answer on an Afghanistan troop withdrawal, he replied, “Some things, my friend, I think you would agree, are not always a yes or a no.” Like his Democratic rivals, de Blasio opposes U.S. support for the Saudi-led military intervention in Yemen. Back in March, he applauded the Senate’s passage of a resolution that would have ended U.S. support, calling the intervention “brutal and immoral.” More broadly, he wants Congress to more vigorously exercise its war powers. “As president I would want the Congress to authorize major military actions because getting away from that has made it bluntly too easy for these kind of interventions to occur without the kind of thinking we need in advance and often with really bad outcomes.” De Blasio is also like the other Democratic candidates in having supported the Iran nuclear deal. He has committed to rejoining the deal if he becomes president. He has also said that he sees “a purposeful march to war that some are trying to engineer in the Republican Party” and he worries that “at some point, Donald Trump will see it as a helpful distraction.” Like other Democratic candidates running under the progressive banner, de Blasio dislikes America’s trade deals. During the second round of Democratic debates he criticized Trump for “trying to sell NAFTA 2.0. He's got a new name for it. It's just as dangerous as the old NAFTA. It's going to take away American jobs like the old NAFTA, like it did to Michigan. And we cannot have Democrats be party to a new NAFTA.” He has been a long-time critic of the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP). Back in 2015 he said it would be a “huge mistake” for Congress to approve so-called fast-track treatment of the deal. What’s unclear is what kinds of trade deal would meet de Blasio’s approval and how many other countries would be willing to meet those terms. De Blasio is also a big proponent of a Green New Deal. He likes to point to the changes he has pushed as mayor to reduce New York’s carbon emissions to show what he would do as president. “I’ve proven it can be done in the biggest city in the country…we’re proving these things really do work.” During his mayorship and before Trump became president, de Blasio made New York City a sanctuary city by limiting its cooperation with federal immigration authorities. He supported the creation of a city ID card that immigrants can use as proof of residency. Earlier this year, he announced a plan to spend $100 million to provide health care to undocumented immigrants. More on De Blasio New York Magazine joined de Blasio on the campaign trail in South Carolina and noted that “he is practically alone among 2020 contenders in not having gotten the kind of magazine profile that presages a run for president, one of the few who hasn’t been on Pod Save America or Desus & Mero or other places where the real campaign is being run.” Last month Vox asked why de Blasio was so disliked in his hometown and concluded that his problem “largely seems to be one of style.” De Blasio sat down last week for a lengthy interview with Fox News’ Sean Hannity that touched upon the Green New Deal among other topics. Last weekend the New York Times Magazine ran an article saying that de Blasio “seems sick of his city—and the feeling is mutual.” De Blasio answered eighteen questions for the New York Times. One of the questions was where he would take his first international trip. His answer? “I’d start with a trip to the European Union.” Brenden Ebertz assisted in the preparation of this post.