Update: Amy Klobuchar announced on March 2, 2020, that she was ending her campaign. Harvard and Yale have a storied rivalry. Yale holds the advantage when it comes to victories on the gridiron and, at least since 1945, on the hardwood. But when it comes to who has had more undergraduates become president, Harvard holds the lead. Five of its undergrads have become president—both Adamses, both Roosevelts, and John F. Kennedy. In contrast, just three Yalies can make the same claim—William Howard Taft and the elder and younger Bush. Minnesota’s senior senator, Amy Klobuchar, hopes to narrow that gap. A magna cum laude graduate of Yale College, Class of 1982, she would also be the first Minnesotan to become president. And yes, the first woman president. The Basics Name: Amy Jean Klobuchar Date of Birth: May 25, 1960 Place of Birth: Plymouth, Minnesota Religion: United Church of Christ Political Party: Democratic Party Marital Status: Married (John Bessler) Children: Abigail (23) Alma Mater: Yale University (BA); University of Chicago (JD) Career: County Attorney for Hennepin County (1999-2007); U.S. Senator (2007-present) Campaign Website: https://www.amyklobuchar.com/  Twitter Handle: @amyklobuchar Klobuchar’s Announcement Amy Klobuchar announced her bid for president on February 10 in Minneapolis. A less hardy politician might have noted that the average high temperature in the Twin Cities in February is 26 degrees and given the speech indoors at a local sports arena or civic auditorium. The Minnesota senator opted instead to roll the dice with the weather and give her speech outdoors. She lost. Almost as soon as she began speaking it began to snow heavily. The hatless Klobuchar was unfazed. She spoke for twenty-four minutes. What is perhaps even more impressive is that some nine thousand Minnesotans braved the elements to listen to her lay out her agenda, which includes lowering the cost of prescription drugs, protecting online privacy, and rejoining the Paris climate agreement. Unlike most of her fellow Democratic presidential contenders, Klobuchar discussed foreign policy in her announcement speech. Alluding to President Trump’s America First policies, she said, “Even if you want to isolate yourselves from the rest of the world, the rest of the world won't let you. International problems come banging at your door, just as opportunities come knocking.” She went on to say, “We need to stand strong and consistently with our allies. We need to be clear in our purpose. We must respect our front-line troops, diplomats and intelligence officers who are there every day risking their lives for us. They deserve better than foreign policy by tweet.” Klobuchar’s Story Klobuchar grew up in Plymouth, a suburb of Minneapolis. Her mother was an elementary school teacher and her father a columnist for the Minneapolis Star-Tribune. Klobuchar was valedictorian of her high school class. She then headed to New Haven, where she eventually graduated magna cum laude with a bachelor’s degree in political science. While at Yale, she interned for fellow Minnesotan, Vice President Walter Mondale. He became her mentor. After graduating from the University of Chicago Law School in 1985, Klobuchar returned to Minneapolis to join the law firm of Dorsey & Whitney. She concentrated on telecommunications law. In 1993, she became a partner at Gray, Plant, Mooty, Mooty & Bennett—one of Minneapolis’s oldest law firms. Klobuchar notched her first political win before she even ran for public office. Twenty-four hours after her daughter was born, Klobuchar was forced to leave the hospital even though her daughter Abigail had been born with a condition that prevented her from being able to swallow. Klobuchar lobbied the Minnesota state legislature to pass a bill that became one of the first laws in the country allowing mothers and newborns to stay in the hospital for forty-eight hours. That provision became federal law during the Clinton presidency. Klobuchar turned to politics in 1998, winning election as Hennepin County Attorney. (Hennepin County encompasses Minneapolis and several of its suburbs, but not St. Paul.) Her fellow lawyers thought she was pretty good at her job. In 2001, Minnesota Lawyer named her "Attorney of the Year." The voters of Hennepin County agreed. They reelected her as county attorney in 2002.  Klobuchar won an open U.S. Senate seat in 2006, making her the first woman elected senator from the “Land of 10,000 Lakes.” She won reelection handily in 2012 and again in 2018. In 2016, Medill News Service ranked Klobuchar first on a list of senators who had the most bills enacted into the law. Klobuchar sits on the Senate Agriculture, Commerce, Judiciary, and Rules committees. Klobuchar’s Message Klobuchar likes to depict herself as “Minnesota nice”—someone who has the ability to “disagree without being disagreeable.” That image took a hit as she was declaring her candidacy. Several news outlets ran stories alleging that she routinely mistreated her staff, so much so that in 2015 the Senate Democratic Leader, Sen. Harry Reid of Nevada, told her privately to change her behavior. Old stories about how Klobuchar’s office staff had the highest turnover rate quickly resurfaced even as some of her staffers defended her leadership and accused critics of a sexist double standard. Klobuchar took the stories, which included one that had her eating a salad with a comb, in stride. “Yes, I can be tough, and yes, I can push people,” she admitted. “I have high expectations for myself. I have high expectations for the people that work for me. But I have high expectations for this country.” Klobuchar is presenting herself as the candidate for everyone, delivering a message of unity. She also describes herself as someone who can get things done, pointing to her record in Senate and her time as Hennepin County Attorney as proof. She describes her campaign as "homegrown," saying "I don't have a political machine. I don't come from money. But what I do have is this: I have grit." Klobuchar’s Foreign Policy Views Klobuchar outlined her foreign-policy worldview during a CNN town hall in February. She says that America’s relationships abroad have “certainly been damaged” during the Trump administration and she believes “we must stand with our allies.” She also said “We must invest in diplomacy,” but at the same time, she believes there’s a need to “modernize our military,” which includes cybersecurity. She also thinks that the United States should “stand as a beacon of democracy .… To me, we must stand with our allies. We must be consistent with our foreign policy, and we must listen to our troops, listen to what the military is saying, listen to our intelligence officers.” Klobuchar fleshed out some of her national security views in an article she wrote in 2015 after terrorist attacks in San Bernardino, Mali, Paris, and Egypt. She argued against “large-scale deployment of American troops” and instead supported “intensified air strikes with our allies and the deployment of American Special Forces to help support local forces combating terrorists.” She thinks “strong local and regional troops on the front lines” are necessary “to make real progress.” Klobuchar supports the Iran nuclear deal. When the Obama administration negotiated the deal back in 2015, she wrote: “While the agreement is by no means perfect, I have concluded that it is our best available option to put the brakes on Iran’s development of a nuclear weapon.” She thinks Trump was wrong to withdraw from the deal. “Donald Trump told us when he got out of it that he was going to give us a better deal. Those were his words. And now we are a month away from the Iranians, who claim now that they're going to blow the caps on enriching uranium …. He has made us less safe than we were when he became president. So what I would do is negotiate us back into that agreement, is stand with our allies, and not give unlimited leverage to China and Russia, which is what he has done.”  Klobuchar similarly opposes the Trump administration’s decision to continue U.S. support for the Saudi-backed war in Yemen. She acknowledges that “we have an important alliance with Saudi Arabia and an important trade relationship, but that doesn’t mean that you don’t stand up when you see the kind of horror we have seen in Yemen and when you see the kinds of human rights violations we have seen in the death of Mr. Khashoggi.” She voted first in December 2018 and then again in March 2019 in favor of legislation that would have ended U.S. support for the war. The first bill died in the House and the second was eventually vetoed by the president. One national security issue on which Klobuchar departs from both the president and some of her Democratic presidential rivals is the U.S. military presence in Syria. She opposed Trump’s decision last December, later reversed, to withdraw U.S. troops from Syria. She said at the time: “I just don’t think you pull out suddenly and do this to your allies, and especially to the Kurds who we trained to fight for us and who are going to be sitting ducks there.” However, she voted no when Mitch McConnell offered a sense-of-the-Senate resolution expressing concern that a “precipitous withdrawal” of U.S. forces from Afghanistan and Syria “could put at risk hard-won gains and United States national security.” She then voted for the larger bill that contained the sense-of-the-Senate resolution that she opposed. It’s hard to say where Klobuchar comes down on trade issues. Her campaign website lists five broad issue areas—health care, shared prosperity and economic justice, climate, a safer world, and a strong democracy. None of them includes a discussion of trade policy. Minnesota is a farming state that has felt the consequences of the trade war with China. When the president first imposed tariffs on Chinese imports, Klobuchar said “Trade is important to Minnesota agriculture. That trade must be fair.” She added that “China must come to the table and negotiate with the U.S. instead of retaliating.” Klobuchar has said that some of America’s trade deals needed to be revisited. At the same time, however, she is “concerned with some of the rhetoric.” Her plan for her first 100 days in office refers a few times to trade. However, those mentions are secondary topics like trade with Cuba and restarting the President’s Trade Council. Tariffs, NAFTA, the Trans-Pacific Partnership, and the World Trade Organization don’t draw a mention. Klobuchar has co-sponsored the Honest Ads Act. It seeks to prevent foreign interference in future elections by ensuring that political ads sold online have the same transparency and disclosure requirements as ads sold on TV, radio, and satellite. “First and foremost this is an issue of national security—Russia attacked us and will continue to use different tactics to undermine our democracy and divide our country, including by purchasing disruptive online political ads. We have to secure our election systems and we have to do it now.” Klobuchar has used her time in the Senate to try to combat human trafficking. At the 2016 Democratic National Convention she said, “As long as ISIS is selling girls for 156 dollars and parents in Nigeria are left with nothing but bows and arrows to chase a terrorist who steal their daughters in the middle of the night, we will never have a just and good world.” More on Klobuchar Klobuchar turned her senior essay at Yale into a book titled Uncovering the Dome. It tells the story of the ten-year political battle behind the building of the Hubert H. Humphrey Metrodome in Minneapolis. (The “Dome” was demolished in 2014.) She also published a memoir in 2015 called The Senator Next Door. Elle profiled Klobuchar back in 2010, saying “She is scary smart (and not just because she graduated from Yale in political science and then went to law school at the University of Chicago). She has managed in her first couple of years in the Senate to be disarmingly effective.” A 2014 New York Times article about rising women in the Democratic Party dubbed Klobuchar “the former prosecutor with made-for-state-fair charms.” Vogue recently called her “Personable, Popular, [and] Pragmatic” and noticed “She loves to turn a gaffe into a joke, and a joke into an opportunity to win over a crowd.” A New York Times video described Klobuchar as a “worker bee” who “isn’t a centrist” but also “hasn’t embraced some of the party’s most progressive ideas either.” Vox profiled Klobuchar, saying “Her candidacy will likely be focused on trying to make the case for pragmatism. The question is whether her vision, or the rising progressive wing’s vision, is where Democratic Party voters want to go.” Vogue wondered back in January whether Klobuchar might be the Democrats’ “secret weapon.” Klobuchar 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 would go to Canada, and I would go to visit our NATO allies.” Corey Cooper, Brenden Ebertz, and Elizabeth Lordi assisted in the preparation of this post.

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? The Chinese Communist Party’s repressive treatment of the Uighurs and other minorities, and growing pressure on Hong Kong, are symptomatic of a broader, and intensifying, “systems” competition. Beijing seems committed to consolidating and legitimizing authoritarian capitalism as an alternative to the democratic capitalism embraced by the United States and its closest allies and partners.  Where necessary and feasible, we should seek cooperation with Beijing, such as in addressing climate disruption, maintaining strategic stability, combatting terrorism, and managing conflict through international peacekeeping. But the United States must defend our fundamental values, core interests, and critical alliances, and accept that this will often entail friction with China. For too long we have underestimated China’s ambitions, while overestimating our ability to shape them. We must instead focus on repairing our democracy and reinvesting in our economic and technological competitiveness; inoculating open societies from corrupt, coercive, or covert political interference; strengthening, rather than straining, our alliances in order to put collective pressure on China for unfair economic practices, human rights abuses, and intimidation of countries that stand up for their sovereignty; realigning defense and other national security investments to reflect China’s military modernization and full-spectrum statecraft; and reducing vulnerabilities from economic interdependence by disentangling the most sensitive sectors of our economies--in an orderly, not chaotic, fashion--and ensuring that American and allied resources and technologies do not underpin authoritarian oppression and surveillance.  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 have been clear: walking away from the JCPOA was a strategic mistake. We didn’t develop the deal as a favor to Iran; we did it because it was in our national security interest. The deal represented a detailed and verifiable arrangement that permanently prohibited Iran from acquiring a nuclear weapon. And the JCPOA was effective: Iran was upholding its commitments, as confirmed repeatedly by international inspectors and our own intelligence community, when President Trump withdrew from it. Walking away from the JCPOA also cost us credibility and the trust of our partners, hindering our ability to work with allies to solve difficult collective challenges.  We should have no illusions about the reality that Iran poses challenges to U.S. interests beyond its nuclear program: its ballistic missile program, malign behavior in the region, threats to our ally Israel, and human rights abuses. But having the JCPOA in place created a foundation from which we could begin addressing those concerns, all of which will be even more intractable if we lack a mechanism to verifiably and permanently prevent Iran from acquiring a nuclear weapon.  If Iran resumes implementing its commitments, then I would rejoin. But I would take the agreement as a floor, not a ceiling. I would revive P5+1 diplomacy and direct US-Iran dialogue at the appropriate levels and would want to pursue follow-on agreements that extend the timeframe of certain nuclear restrictions, cover Iran’s missile program, and address its role in regional conflicts, all in return for targeted sanctions relief.  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? We have to accept that denuclearization will not happen overnight and will require a sustained, step-by-step approach spanning a significant number of years. It is unrealistic to think that the North Koreans will get rid of their entire nuclear weapons stockpile at the outset. I believe the most realistic way to get there is a framework for complete, verifiable denuclearization and peace on the Korean Peninsula that is comprehensive in scope, with steps on both fronts implemented step-by-step and in tandem.  I would support an initial freeze agreement that would have North Korea cease production of fissile material and end nuclear and missile testing, all verified by international inspectors, in exchange for targeted sanctions relief, which could be reversed if the North Koreans did not uphold their end of the bargain. After this initial deal, we would need to proceed toward dismantling facilities and then the weapons themselves.  This could be accompanied with corresponding measures on sanctions relief, as well as substantive progress on building a lasting peace regime and normalizing relations. It has to be a two-way street. The only way to achieve complete denuclearization is to recognize that we have to address the core issues of peace and security on the Korean Peninsula in tandem, and that will require concrete steps on both sides.  4. What, if any, steps would you take to counter Russian aggression against Ukraine? Russian aggression against Ukraine is an attack on the agreed principles and rules of European and global order that protect global citizens beyond Ukraine, including Americans.  Ukraine’s sovereignty and territorial integrity is protected by the UN Charter and European security agreements, which the Russian Federation has signed and is obligated to respect.  The OSCE mission and Minsk agreement both obligate Russia to resolve the conflict peacefully with Ukraine. We must keep tough, targeted, and effective economic and financial sanctions on Russia as long as it continues to assault Ukrainian territory and citizens, and continues to illegally occupy Ukrainian territory in the Donbas and Crimea. But countering Russian aggression  also means supporting Ukraine’s independence and ability to make and implement sovereign foreign policy decisions by supporting Ukraine’s political, economic, and defense capabilities. Although Ukraine is not a formal treaty ally, the U.S. should be willing to help Ukraine develop a modern and capable defense force to defend its citizens, including advice, education, training, and willingness to consider commercial sales of weapons appropriate to the situation.   While the US must not exacerbate instability or conflict, we should not shy from responsible defense assistance to a democracy in the heart of Europe that is under assault because its citizens have chosen a democratic European path. 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? I’ve seen first-hand the costs of our long conflict in Afghanistan. It’s time to end this endless war. The only question is do we do it well or poorly.  Our objective has remained the same throughout this conflict: ensuring that Afghanistan never again becomes a base for terrorist attacks against the US or its allies.  A negotiated peace agreement in which we maintain a relevant special operations/intelligence presence but bring home our ground troops is the best way to ensure that Afghanistan never again becomes a base for terrorist attacks against the United States or its allies. Using our current presence to help lock in a peace agreement should be part of that strategy.   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 must halt military support for the Saudi-led campaign in Yemen. The brutal war has brought the country to the verge of famine and killed tens of thousands of civilians. As president, I would suspend all arms sales to Saudi Arabia that could be used in the Yemen war, but also cut off the spare parts and maintenance for equipment needed to prolong that war. Ending our own involvement in the war in Yemen is just a first step. We need to increase our diplomatic efforts and work with our allies to end the conflict itself, which has generated the world’s worst humanitarian crisis and helped to spread extremism.  We must also reset our relationship with Saudi Arabia, so that our interests and values drive the relationship -- not the other way around. Our strongest alliances must be founded upon shared commitments to international law and human rights. We must be pragmatic about intelligence-sharing: totally stopping such cooperation could hinder our ability to detect and thwart threats emanating from Yemen, including from the regional al-Qaeda affiliate.   But the Saudi government should not get a pass on the state-sponsored murder of an American resident abroad, nor should they be able to buy our silence on human rights abuses -- including killing civilians in Yemen and supporting extremist ideology across the Muslim world -- through purchases of US weapons. 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, I do support a two-state solution. The US alliance with Israel and support for Israel’s security have long been fundamental tenets of US national security policy, and they will remain so if I am elected President. But this is not a zero-sum game. The security of Israel and the aspirations of the Palestinian people are fundamentally interlinked. To visit the West Bank and Gaza is to understand the fundamental need for a two-state solution which addresses the economic, security and moral rights of both Israelis and of the Palestinians who live there. I have clearly and strongly stated my support for the security of Israel, and I have also said that I disagree with policies being carried out by the current Israeli administration. This includes overreach in the West Bank and Gaza and short-sighted focus on military responses. The humanitarian catastrophe in Gaza has gone on far too long and provides a ripe environment for the very extremist violence that threatens Israel. The United States needs to put its arm around the shoulder of its ally, Israel, and help it to develop policies that will work towards the economic and security benefit of both Israel and the Palestinians. Both Israeli and Palestinian citizens should be able to enjoy the freedom to go about their daily lives without fear of rocket attacks or other violence, and to work to achieve economic well-being for their families. A two-state solution that achieves legitimate Palestinian aspirations and meets Israel’s security needs remains the only viable way forward. 8. What, if any, additional steps should the United States take to remove Nicolás Maduro from power in Venezuela? Maduro is responsible for the humanitarian crisis that has seen more than four million Venezuelans flee their country. Endemic corruption, pervasive criminality among top officials, and systematic human rights abuses all reinforce the fact that the Maduro regime has lost the legitimacy to govern, and I stand behind Juan Guaidó as the rightful interim president. Our end state in Venezuela is a peaceful transfer of power to an interim constitutional government followed by free and fair elections. Because the refugee situation and Venezuela's imploding economy are impacting the entire hemisphere, the U.S. government should respond in concert with our regional allies, who are shouldering the heavy burden of a large Venezuelan diaspora.  Together, we also need to address the Russian, Chinese and Cuban interference now complicating an effective transition. In this vein, I support recent efforts to negotiate a settlement between the regime and Guaidó; such talks can be the best route to a managed transition.  I would also continue to apply targeted sanctions against regime officials -- but broad economic sanctions, such as those pursued by the Trump administration, run the risk of hurting innocent Venezuelans already face crippling food and medicine shortages and enabling the Maduro regime to promote the false narrative that the U.S. is responsible for the country's misery. I also would support extending Temporary Protected Status to Venezuelans currently residing in the United States until the crisis is resolved.  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? Africa is not a country, it is a diverse and multifaceted continent of states with rich and proud histories, great successes, and significant and varied challenges.  On that continent, the winds of change are sweeping aside old regimes and certitudes. In Algeria, a new generation has risen up against a sclerotic government. In Sudan, women have led a revolt against a criminal one. And in Ethiopia, we have seen what can look like when hope triumphs over hostility. By 2025, nearly one-fifth of the world’s population will live in the nations of a rising Africa--60 percent of whose people are now under the age of 25. Our priorities should include cooperation on helping our African partners manage that population growth: accountable governance, climate change mitigation and conflict prevention.  We must also prioritize building shared prosperity that can assist new generations in having a viable and productive future.  That continent now boasts some of the fastest-growing economies in the world, which have lifted millions out of poverty and into the global marketplace.  Sub-Saharan Africa represents one of the biggest opportunities for new markets for US goods and investment. And as African peoples demand greater accountability and transparency from their leaders, the United States must stand ready to put our values into action, to promote empowerment alongside economic engagement.   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? I would not support the US joining the current CPTPP. It lacks critical trade provisions on labor, environment, and the digital economy, and does not align closely enough with the needs and interests of American workers. We must address failures in delivering on the social compact here at home. For too long, Washington sold trade deal after trade deal with the promise that a rising tide would lift all boats. It hasn’t — in part because it wasn’t accompanied by investment here at home — and Washington failed those left behind. A lot of Americans just don’t trust the government to negotiate trade deals in their best interest. We need an honest national discussion about trade. Our work must begin at home. At the same time, we should not surrender the world’s fastest growing markets in Asia to other nations. It is where China wants to dominate and is buying influence through their Belt and Road initiative. China is negotiating broad new trade agreements with their neighbors that favor China’s economy and workers. These agreements also enshrine non-democratic principles at the expense of the US and free people. Sitting on the sidelines is a losing proposition for America. We cannot just put up walls around our economy. We need to be setting the rules of the road for the future, so that strategic and economic competition with China happens on our terms. 11. How would you discourage the proliferation of coal-fired power plants in developing countries? The US needs to lead the way in the global exit of coal-fired power— a process already underway. First, as President, I will quadruple clean energy research and development in the US and enact additional policies to support the deployment of renewables, storage, carbon capture and energy efficiency in homes and building retrofits. Second, I would also convene local leaders from across the globe at a Pittsburgh Climate Summit to commit to decisive action within their communities and create local initiatives to deploy clean energy policy and technologies that will continue to drive down the price of clean energy and move on from coal. Third, the US will work through global institutions to reduce and end global fossil fuel subsidies, many of which have unfairly favored coal, starting at home. Finally, the US can leverage trade agreements to reduce the amount of coal funded through China's Belt and Road initiative. 12. What has been the greatest foreign policy accomplishment of the United States since World War II? What has been the biggest mistake? After intense political debates in the years after WWII between isolationists and internationalists, I believe America’s greatest foreign policy accomplishment has been our leadership of global efforts to promote the values that animate our own and other great democracies, to the benefit of the security and freedom of our people. From the design, implementation and success of the Marshall Plan to the fall of the Soviet Union, our leadership – until recently – has been based not only on our power but also on the ideals of America and our allies.  Our biggest mistake has been the failure to use our leadership more vigorously in key areas of international change: to bend the benefits of globalization more equitably to improving the everyday lives of poor and middle-class citizens, especially women and minorities, in our own and other nations; to combat climate change and nuclear proliferation; and to stand strong against the recent surge of anti-democratic forces around the world.  I often think of how the resources used for unnecessary, prolonged wars that were not in our interest could have been used in addressing these issues to the benefit of our own people and the entire world.   This project was made possible in part by a grant from Carnegie Corporation of New York. View All Candidates

Update: Jay Inslee announced on August 22, 2019, that he was ending his campaign. The two dozen candidates competing for the Democratic presidential nomination are all hoping to get to Washington. But so far no U.S. president has come from Washington. Governor Jay Inslee hopes to change that. The Washington state native has plenty of experience in the city of Washington. He served nine terms in the U.S. House of Representatives and he did it representing two different congressional districts, one in a rural part of the state and another in suburban Seattle. Inslee is running a somewhat unconventional bid for the White House. Rather than focusing on a range of issues that matter to voters, he’s going all-in on one issue: climate change. How well he does will be one indicator of whether climate change has emerged as an issue that drives votes. The Basics Name: Jay Robert Inslee Date of Birth: February 9, 1951 Place of Birth: Seattle, Washington Religion: Protestant Political Party: Democratic Party Marital Status: Married (Trudi) Children: Three sons (Joe, Jack, and Connor) Alma Mater: Attended Stanford University; University of Washington (BA); Willamette University School of Law (JD) Career: Washington State Representative (1989-1993); U.S. Representative (1993-1996; 1999-2012); Governor of Washington (2013-present) Campaign Website: https://jayinslee.com/ Twitter Handle: @JayInslee Inslee’s Announcement Inslee used his campaign announcement video to make clear that his presidency would tackle one issue above all: climate change. He calls it “the most urgent challenge of our time.” Inslee is optimistic that Americans can “rise up” and transform the economy to “run on 100 percent clean energy,” which will “bring millions of good paying jobs to every community across America.” He did not bring up his plans for U.S. foreign policy. Inslee’s Story Inslee was born in Seattle. He touts the fact that that he is a “fifth-generation Washingtonian who has lived and worked in urban and rural communities on both sides of the state.” His father taught high school—Jimi Hendrix was one of his students—and coached football. His mother worked at Sears. Inslee played basketball in high school. His team made the state championship his senior year. Stanford was Inslee’s original college destination. Financial reasons, however, led him to transfer to the University of Washington, where he graduated with a degree in economics in 1973. Three years later he got his law degree from Willamette University Law School. Inslee then moved to Selah, Washington, a town of about 7,000 people in the south central part of the state, to practice law. Selah is in orchard country, hence, its nickname: Apple Juice Capital of the World. Inslee's first foray into politics came when he and his wife fought to get a new public high school built in Selah. He was elected in 1989 to serve in the Washington House of Representatives. In 1992, he won a seat in the House of Representatives in the other Washington. His time in the nation’s capital was short. He lost his bid for reelection in 1994, as did a lot of Democrats that year. Inslee attributes that defeat to his having voted in favor of a ban on assault weapons. He moved back to Seattle to practice law, lost a gubernatorial bid in 1996, and served a brief stint as regional director for the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. In January 1999, Inslee was headed back to Washington, DC, having won a seat representing a congressional district covering part of suburban Seattle. He was a good fit for his district. Inslee was reelected seven times. He then won the governorship in 2012 and was reelected in 2016. Inslee chaired the Democratic Governors Association in 2018, a year in which Democrats picked up seven governorships. That job gave him opportunities to raise his national profile by appearing on the campaign trails and news shows. Inslee’s Message Inslee sees climate change as his “driving motivation.” He rejects the idea, however, that he is running as a single-issue candidate. In his view, climate change is “all-encompassing.” It affects economic, health, and national security issues. He also sees climate change as a way to drive economic growth and to connect to the economic anxieties of people in the states critical to beating President Trump. Inslee contrasts himself to Trump. He describes the president as a “pessimist,” while “we are the optimists, we are the can-do people. We don’t fear the future, we build it. We don’t fear challenge, we embrace it.” He equates his call to defeat climate change with JFK’s call to put a man on the moon, which he describes as “the bugle of inspiration” that “united the country to a new mission statement.” Inslee’s Foreign Policy Views Inslee focused his congressional efforts on energy and natural resources issues rather than on foreign policy. He voted against the 2002 resolution authorizing the Iraq War, a point he emphasized in subsequent elections. Like his fellow Democratic presidential candidates, Inslee thinks that Trump’s foreign policy choices are hurting the United States. On the first night of the first round of Democratic presidential debates, moderator Chuck Todd asked, “What is the biggest threat—what is—who is the geopolitical threat to the United States?” Inslee answered, “The biggest threat to the security of the United States is Donald Trump. And there's no question about it.” The governor gave perhaps the fullest explanation of his foreign policy views in an address to the Council on Foreign Relations last month in New York. He put climate change front and center in his remarks, calling for “a global climate mobilization” that would make tackling the climate-change challenge “the organizing principle of our entire foreign policy thought process.” To that end he has: proposed twenty-seven separate policy initiatives that you might think of as a full-court press to address this issue and build the international economy. And it only starts—and I want to make this point—it only starts with making sure that we do not leave the Paris Agreement. Obviously, we have not left, as you know. It only starts with that. That is, like, table stakes into the discussion, because we know the Paris Agreement is, frankly, woefully inadequate to the science, and the science demands us to accelerate our efforts dramatically to get this job done. Inslee calls Trump’s withdrawal from the Paris Climate Agreement “a shameful course of action that will jeopardize the health and prosperity of our children and grandchildren.” He adds, “The U.S. cannot credibly remain a world leader while withdrawing from an agreement that reflects the overwhelming desire of the global community. President Trump has put our nation on the wrong path, and the wrong side of history." Inslee helped lead the creation of the U.S. Climate Alliance, which coordinates state efforts to implement policies that advance the goals of the Paris Agreement. Inslee’s fellow presidential candidate, John Hickenlooper of Colorado, also joined the effort. Inslee considers climate change to be a national security threat “because it is going to drive mass migrations that destabilize governments around the world,” and while “Trump will not listen to his generals. I have, and I have talked to intelligence officials.” Indeed, Inslee thinks that: We have a commander in chief who's AWOL right now on climate change. This is a real national security threat, causing instability around the globe. The last thing we should be doing is using our military bases to ship coal. This would only encourage the further burning of fossil fuels and exacerbate this threat. We are running out of time to act on climate change. Climate is not the only policy Inslee thinks that Trump has gotten wrong. He also thinks that Trump’s trade policies have hurt the economy. He says that “there is no question that we need to make sure that our trading partners abide by their obligations under international trade agreements. But ill-considered tariffs will only hurt Washington companies and other U.S. consumers and industries who rely on competitive access to foreign markets.” Trump’s handling of alliances also gets low marks from Inslee:  He has weakened the United States' national security every way he can by removing the ability to bring alliances to bear on North Korea or Iran or on climate change or in any direct—Venezuela or anything else. He has severely weakened our ability to be effective in protecting international security because he has eliminated virtually every alliance, to have a working relationship with every alliance we have. We are stronger in an alliance against North Korea than singularly. We are stronger in an alliance involving Iran than singularly. And he has made us a single actor. So, he has weakened our ability significantly. Inslee wants to decrease the risk of nuclear war. He would do so by going beyond trying to reduce the number and type of weapons and to look at regulating how they are maintained: You cannot continue to have thousands of warheads on a hair trigger and not have, at some point, some accidental discharge. And I believe this is one of the things we have to encourage.... I believe we have to reach international agreements, where you cannot launch without 24-, 48-hour systems, where everyone knows you're heading to the button, so that it allows people to have some discussion before an accidental discharge. There have been two instances in the last 30 years: once when the U.S. believed we were under a full-scale Soviet attack in our command center. And once when the Soviets believed there were six warheads headed toward Moscow. Twice. That's already happened twice. So, I believe we have to change the command and control system where it can't launch within a reasonable period of time, and the world knows you're heading towards a launch.” Trump’s refugee policies have also triggered Inslee’s ire. He has criticized Trump’s travel ban, cuts in the number of refugee admissions, lower funding for UN refugee programs, and closing refugee resettlement offices around the United States. Inslee says he is “proud” that he was the first governor to fight against the travel ban and that his state was the first to sue the Trump administration over the issue. After Trump ordered air strikes against Syria in April 2018, Inslee wrote a letter to the State Department saying, “While this Administration decries these atrocious attacks against humanity, it still unconscionably condemns Syrians to suffer these atrocities.” He added, “It is time for us to renew our American commitment to supporting those in need during a time of crisis.” He then tied in his opposition to the travel ban, saying “We could be providing a lifeline, but instead we are turning our back. I urge you to swiftly review and reverse the current policies that are restricting the ability of qualified refugees to be admitted into the United States. This is, after all, about humanity.” More on Inslee In 2013, Inslee co-wrote Apollo's Fire: Igniting America's Clean Energy Economy with Bracken Hendricks. The Atlantic looked at the prospect of a campaign focused squarely on climate change, saying “Inslee wants to be the climate guy. But some of the people around him worry that if he is actually going to do this, he can’t be only the climate guy—written off as an issue candidate who’s not a serious contender to be president.” The New Yorker profiled Inslee, saying he has an “eager and direct manner: his thoughts emerge in lists (“No. 4 is . . .”) and his mind moves toward details. And though he has not been a single-issue governor, the case for his Presidential candidacy rests on his decades-long interest in political solutions to climate change.” Ella Nilsen at Vox interviewed Inslee. One of her takeaways? “Inslee is treating climate change like an umbrella issue under which other issues like the economy, health care, and national security also fit.” Rolling Stone also profiled Inslee’s candidacy, saying “For someone who’s spent his career working on the climate, Inslee is the most unlikely of things: an optimist.” New York Magazine assessed Inslee’s chances of running a successful single-issue campaign, saying “the recent precedents aren’t great for Inslee or any other single-issue candidate. This approach will, however, make it easier for Inslee to keep his identity separate from that of the other 20 or 30 or 40 presidential aspirants.” Corey Cooper, Brenden Ebertz, and Elizabeth Lordi assisted in the preparation of this post.

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? Human rights in China should absolutely play a role in broader U.S. policy toward China. When we look the other way on fundamental issues of human rights, we are also responsible. I want to restore U.S. leadership within a rules-based liberal world order that collectively holds nations accountable for their illiberal behavior, whether in foreign or domestic spheres. Importantly, we must not do this alone. Rather, we must regain our leadership of the values-based world order from which we have retreated. Our absence has permitted China, Russia and emerging autocrats to act with impunity, with no concerns about consequences. In fact, it has even encouraged former allies and friends to provide support for China’s illiberal behavior. For example, Greece ceded its political voice to China — vetoing a European Union condemnation of China’s human-rights record — in exchange for Chinese investment in the port of Piraeus. Collectively, we must find points of leverage in order to convince China to improve their treatment of Uighurs, Tibetans, and other minority groups, to ensure the autonomy of Hong Kong, and to continue to protect democracy in Taiwan, among other issues. At the same time, we must improve our own human rights record — such as our treatment of migrants and refugees at the border, and our support for the war in Yemen — so that we have credibility to take on other countries for their human rights record. Ultimately, we need to restore our standing in the world and renew our commitment to multilateral action and the international institutions we built in the 20th century to establish and enforce global human rights standards.  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 move to rejoin the Iran nuclear deal (JCPOA) as soon as possible upon my swearing in. We never should have left it in the first place. We broke our word, so we should not be demanding changes to the agreement, but rather recognize the value of the nuclear accord as is. Certainly, the JCPOA was not a perfect agreement. It did not deal with the threat from Iranian missiles, or their support for violent extremism. And it contains a “sunset clause,” meaning it  expires after a decade. But it was accomplishing the one goal it set out to achieve: stopping Iran from developing nuclear weapons. On that metric alone, it was a success. International disarmament agreements are complicated, and it’s normal for them to sunset after a given period of time. In this case, the deal was good enough to be supported by all of our European allies, along with Russia and China, and of course Iran itself. Iran was abiding by its terms. If the deal had been given the chance to hold for the full decade, it would have created a reservoir of goodwill between Iran and the world that would be the basis for the next agreement. After decades of animosity between Iran and the United States, it takes time to build trust. The JCPOA was doing that. Our leaving the agreement not only destroyed a carefully crafted international agreement, it also sapped our credibility in negotiations with other countries, like North Korea.  What’s worse, our Iran policy now seems to dismiss the principle that “militaries can stop a problem, but militaries cannot fix a problem.” Our diplomacy had convened the world and reached agreement on economic sanctions, including with new bedfellows such as Russia and China. Now our military is poised to “stop” a problem we had already “fixed” by diplomacy. Even if this were to occur, such as with strikes to destroy their nuclear infrastructure, at most, such strikes would result in delaying Iran’s timetable for creating a nuclear weapon by only four years. The results would also include fractured alliances, economic disarray, more nuclear arms races, and a loss of U.S. credibility and leadership within our rules-based world order – requiring fixing. 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? With respect to North Korea, I believe we must maintain the goal of complete denuclearization until it has been achieved. But that does not mean I think we will be able to quickly reach an agreement that achieves that goal. Our first step should be re-initiate six-party talks involving the two Koreas, Japan, China, Russia, and the United States, along with the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), because each of the other countries in the region will play critical roles in any negotiations — Russia and China, in particular, have leverage over North Korea as their main economic partners — and the IAEA will need to be involved in any inspections regime ultimately agreed upon. Negotiations will likely lead to some sort of preliminary agreement involving partial sanctions relief in exchange for some dismantling of the North’s nuclear weapons program. The eventual success of that initial deal should lay the groundwork for total denuclearization, along with some improvements to North Korea’s human rights standards. As with Iran, we need to build trust between North Korea and the rest of the world – and we know that will take time. We also need to live by President Reagan’s adage: “Trust, but verify” (as we did with the Iranian accord). Diplomacy like this is a slow process, but the peace and stability it leads too will be well worth the wait.  4. What, if any, steps would you take to counter Russian aggression against Ukraine? The territorial aggression of Russia and other bad actors on the world stage must not be allowed to continue. It is a threat to global peace and security, and it is an affront to the values we hold dear. Ukraine, from the perspective of Russia, is merely a domino that may lead to further “near abroad” gains. If it fails in one of several ways — from internal dissention that shatters its frail democracy to incursions by “insurgents” supported by clandestine Russian support —Russia will feel empowered to assess where it may find further success in neighboring nations once part of its orbit. This is a prime example of why US leadership of a rules-based global order is so important that also recognizes the value and need of allies for their equal contributions in different ways. We need new leadership here at home in order to re-establish that the United States is committed to democracy’s values, and that we will not turn our backs on democratic countries under threat from autocrats like Vladimir Putin. Putting Russia on notice will require demonstrating that we are serious. We can accomplish that through expanding sanctions, through curtailing Russia’s participation in international organizations and efforts, and even through more active deterrence measures, including cyber activity. 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? I would commit to the full withdrawal of U.S. troops from Afghanistan by the end of my first term but with a plan — and milestones to measure progress — to actually achieve the goal of stability and good governance that is so needed. We must recognize the corrupt and unskilled leadership that has prevented this from happening, and work around it — or else our efforts will continue to be wasted. The security forces need competence, not just greater numbers; the same goes for their police; and finally — most importantly — our developmental and other non-military aid must be restructured. There are programs that work (e.g., microloans for women) but far too many have served to bankroll corruption (even among our own contracted companies). The Special Inspector General for Afghanistan Reconstruction reports are a good guide for correcting this. We must continue taking the fight to the Taliban in order to compel a final peace settlement with them and with the Afghan government that brings not just stability, but a chance for real human rights standards -- particularly for Afghan women -- to take firm root. We started the war in Afghanistan to stop al-Qaeda because it had attacked us on September 11th. The tragic misadventure in Iraq took our focus and resources away from fixing Afghanistan — which I believe could have been achieved by the other non-military elements of our (and our collective allies) power:  namely economic development and diplomatic engagement. We must now double-down on such efforts, as endless war is unacceptable. 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? We recently watched President Putin give a “high-five” to the Crown Prince of Saudi Arabia, who felt empowered enough to murder an American resident in his embassy because -— as populist autocrats from Hungary to the Philippines, and Turkey to Venezuela have all demonstrated — there is no longer reason to be concerned about consequences from a rules-based world order.  This is unacceptable, as is Saudi Arabia’s and its conduct in Yemen’s civil war. For decades the United States considered Saudi Arabia our closest ally in the Arab world, even though this meant turning a blind eye to their egregious human rights record, including abhorrent treatment of women. The American people accepted this situation because we were told Saudi Arabia was such a critical exporter of oil that it would cripple the world economy if we interrupted the status quo — even though they did not hesitate to turn off the spigot when it is in its interest to do so; fail to give us military bases when we needed them; or continue to support terrorism that harmed us. Especially after the assassination of Jamal Khashoggi and the horrible war in Yemen, Saudi Arabia has made clear that its incoming leader will fail to have the values necessary to change the nation’s illiberal behavior. We must, again, work within and in leadership of a global concord to compel behavior by the Saudis that moves it toward collective interests of a rules-based world order. So much is at stake: oversight of the nuclear power plants it is building; sleight-of-hand support for terrorism; human rights within Saudi Arabia; the chance to have a moderate regime in the center of the Arab world; the ongoing war and humanitarian crisis in Yemen; changes needed to address climate change; and of course the possibility of tensions between Iran and Saudi Arabia exploding into conflict. America can help solve these problems, but only if we restore our leadership and build up the rules-based world order. 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? I support a two-state solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. There are no easy solutions to this decades-long conflict, but we must begin by affirmatively re-engaging in the region. We must maintain our steadfast allied support of Israel, but we must also work much harder to be an honest broker and deal fairly with the Palestinians as we lead the brokerage of peace between them. While Israel is our closest ally in the Middle East — and I have worked hard with and on behalf of Israel for decades, both during my time in the Navy and as a Congressman — we must also work to ensure the Palestinian people know that we are committed to a just solution to the conflict. This means returning our embassy from Jerusalem to Tel Aviv, because it has always been accepted that this would be part of a two state solution, not a unilateral decision.  It also means restoring humanitarian assistance to the Palestinians. But at the same time we must deal with the bias against Israel in key United Nations organizations and make clear that our support for Israel as a democratic homeland for the Jewish people is sacrosanct. While Israel may be safe today, it will not be permanently secure without a peace agreement that includes a two state solution, and that is only possible if outcomes are not decided unilaterally beforehand. Otherwise, the cycle of violence will only continue. The United States is the one indispensable nation that can work with both sides to reach a just peace deal., and only the full weight of the Presidency will be able to bring it about. Our own interests demand it as challenges elsewhere increase – but we must secure Israel’s permanent security to do so, and can only do that with a fair, honestly brokered process. 8. What, if any, additional steps should the United States take to remove Nicolás Maduro from power in Venezuela? The situation in Venezuela is tragic. President Maduro has led his nation’s economy to ruin and corruption, and created a disastrous humanitarian situation. We must convene the regional Organization of American States (OAS) — and other international organizations as appropriate — to compel changes in Venezuela that will bring about a political settlement that avoids a civil war while bringing about just governance.  This is not about military force at all. Rather, we must recognize that individual and human rights and a fair and just government, the values the liberal world order once stood for, can only flourish in Venezuela if the world comes together and provides the incentives and disincentives required to bring Venezuela back.. Disincentives should include appropriate financial sanctions against those in government who are looting their nation — often in conjunction with drug traffickers -- and travel sanctions against the same. We must do our part to ensure that injustice does not prevail in Venezuela, and prevent a civil implosion that destabilizes the hemisphere. 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? Not only will Africa account for 25 percent of the world’s population, but with the world’s fastest-growing middle class, by 2050 Africa will be much more of an economic powerhouse. With most of the continent still just decades removed from colonialism, and many countries still in the grip of post-colonial dictatorships and civil wars, firmly establishing democracy across Africa is still a major challenge. We must not turn our backs on civilian populations at risk of oppression by corrupt and violent forces, as we did in Rwanda and Darfur. We should also prioritize our diplomatic engagement with African governments, because for too long we have ignored them, and primarily engaged with African countries through our military (across Africa military attaches and personnel in embassies outnumber those in our diplomatic corps). And because engagement is the best way to identify and work with centers of excellence and enhance our relationships, our efforts in Africa are severely lacking due to the dearth of economic, development, and diplomatic personnel. Africa will be a powerhouse one day soon, and Africans will remember who was there for them. We must double down on meeting the continent’s needs – from addressing poverty and infrastructure to developmental aid and education – or we risk losing influence in Africa to China and other countries that are not aligned with our values.  Critically, we must also offer much more economic, financial and diplomatic support to the developing economies of Africa, and incentivize US companies to get engaged in fair, just ways because in our absence China’s “Belt and Road Initiative” is building roads and bridges and other infrastructure, buying up African farmland, and settling Chinese workers across the continent. The result is almost a “neo-colonial” relationship as nations accept loans and investment from China, in exchange for their own sovereignty — such as when Djibouti gave China its first overseas naval base because Chinese debt has enslaved its economy and government budget. We cannot allow China to build an illiberal world order by turning African countries, and others elsewhere in the developing world, into vassal states.    We also must recognize that Africa is a region ripe for increased violence and strife as the climate changes, and that African advancement also threatens to further drive climate change. Take note, for instance, that only 8% of the tropics has air conditioning right now — but a majority soon will in the decades to come. That is why I strongly support ratifying the Kigali Agreement, which regulates the use of the potent greenhouse gases known as HFCs (hydrofluorocarbons). We must move the world toward greater energy efficiency. If African countries and other tropical countries were to broadly adopt air conditioning without using the most energy efficient types (which use one third of the energy of the average air conditioning unit), it would spell more disaster for the climate; but if it did adopt with our leadership the most efficient of today’s standards, it would be equivalent to reforesting two-thirds of the Amazon. 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? I believe we lost an important opportunity to shape the future of global trade when we withdrew our involvement from the Trans-Pacific Partnership. While that trade agreement was far from perfect, it gave us the chance to set the rules of engagement across a critically important region, home to some of the world’s most dynamic, influential, and rapidly changing countries – and within a framework that does not include China. We need to set the standards of fair trade in the region where China has none, and our withdrawal sent a worrying signal to our regional friends and allies that we are not interested in continuing our strong traditional relationship, nor in expanding our political engagement with them. In the absence of US global leadership, China will inevitably fill the vacuum. We should have addressed some issues in the CPTPP – such as the expanded monopoly protections for the pharmaceutical industry that were in it, against the interests of consumers. As President, I will seek to reaffirm our commitment to the Asia Pacific region by re-joining the Trans-Pacific Partnership while improving the agreement to ensure that it serves our people, not merely our corporations (including in arenas as intellectual property, data privacy protections, and environmental standards). I will make certain that all future trade agreements and trade policy decisions are made principally for the benefit of the American people. This is not just a trade issue: it is a serious geo-political issue. We need to commit ourselves to positive engagement with the countries of the Asia Pacific region, which is the most strategically important area in the 21st century for America. 11. How would you discourage the proliferation of coal-fired power plants in developing countries? As President, I will immediately move to re-join the Paris Climate Accord, and not only work to compel nations to meet their commitments but to increase them. It is absolutely imperative that we restore US global leadership in this critical multilateral effort so that we can collectively disarm the catastrophic threat of climate change. We simply cannot do it alone: the United States can only achieve 15% of the required reduction of greenhouse gas emissions on our own before that time bomb explodes on us. On the issue of coal-plants, we must deal with the problem where it is. That means working directly with China, which is set to build over 1600 coal plants in the next decade, including those to be dismantled in China and rebuilt in other countries as part of its Belt and Road Initiative.  We must help developing countries access the renewable technologies being pioneered here in the United States and in other countries, so they need not rely on Chinese coal plants, or their own. With the appropriate financial incentives from us — and, importantly, from the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund — we can confront this global threat. We must also, as mentioned above, ensure that as majorities in developing nations move into the middle class, we help them adopt the best technologies in renewable energy and in the most energy efficient appliances. Global warming is a global problem that will be devastating to us no matter what we do alone — so we must bring the world along with us as we strive to reach net-zero greenhouse gas emissions by 2050. On the particular issue of coal, we can work to establish a date certain after which coal exports will be banned.  We currently export 12% of all U.S. coal production, so we are perpetuating the use of this major source of pollution and carbon emissions. However, this must be done in conjunction with the training for fossil fuel workers required to transition to the replacement manufacturing green energy jobs. 12. What has been the greatest foreign policy accomplishment of the United States since World War II? What has been the biggest mistake? After America defeated the horrors of fascism and imperialism in World War II, the “Greatest Generation” promised that the world would not slip into the oblivion of total war a third time They kept their promise by building the liberal world order based upon the rules of individual freedom and human rights, open and fair markets, and fair and just governments. It was an order that embraced the world’s collective good. We convened the world by the power of these ideals. By bringing together those who shared these values in multilateral organizations and agreements, we all became stronger, safer, healthier and more prosperous. And that is what really makes “America First.” That is American exceptionalism. That is why America’s retreat from the world today is so dangerous and damaging to our American Dream. Wise people who came before us, out of the ashes of war, lit a flame of justice as part of a  global concord, and then we kept that flame burning brightly through Presidents both Democrat and Republican — from Eisenhower to Kennedy to Reagan to Clinton — who understood that it was this world compact, wisely led by us, that would in turn provide for our peace, our prosperity, and our freedoms in our American Dream. Our biggest foreign policy mistake was Iraq. It was justified as a preventive war by our leaders at the time, then it embroiled us in an expanding conflict throughout the Middle East, into Africa and beyond, as it created the more brutal terror of ISIS. Politicians of both parties who cast their vote for such a reckless war did not understand either the complexities of the world, or the limitations of military power:  while militaries can stop a problem, they can never fix a problem. That tragic mistake left two decades of unaccountable consequences in the Middle East for the United States and the world, leaving America and the region with an enormous, and still untold, human and economic toll and leaving Americans with a crisis of faith in U.S. leadership, and unfortunately, also our engagement in the world. This is why our country desperately needs a President with a depth of global experience and an understanding of all the elements of our nation’s power, from our economy and our diplomacy, to the power of our ideals and our military, including its limitations, so that when faced with the decision of whether or not to use our military, our Commander-in-Chief will know how it will end before deciding if it is wise to begin. I will be that President.   This project was made possible in part by a grant from Carnegie Corporation of New York. View All Candidates

The Democratic candidate has laid out a comprehensive trade policy, but it speaks more to party activists than to voters.