I'm an occasional reader of the magazine Foreign Affairs. And I would recommend this magazine to anyone who is interested in keeping up on what's going on around the world.It's pretty dense stuff with very little advertisements or even pictures for that matter.

It's done bi-monthly and the July/August edition had 2 essays that I found particularly interesting. They illustrate something I've been suspecting for a while which is that there are more similarities between the 2 party's than there are differences.

The 2 essays in question are by 2 current presidential candidates. Barack Obama and Mitt Romney. Both on what they see as priorities for the United States in regards to our Foreign Policy.

As I expected, both candidates assert that there is plenty or room for improvement in our current Foreign Policy. Both imply that the United States has some sort of responsibility to regulate/police the world and that doing so is in our best interest. Both imply the current administration has made mistakes.

One thing that immediately jumped out at me about Obamas essay is that it is loaded with a lot of rhetoric and language meant to inspire, make you feel good etc... However, his proposals struck me as a bit idealistic and hollow. For example, it is no surprise that he calls for an end to the Iraq war. Put more effort into diplomacy but nothing tangible. And then he goes on to talk about military expansion. Here's where it gets interesting.

"We should expand our ground forces by adding 65,000 soldiers to the army and 27,000 marines. Bolstering these forces is about more than meeting quotas. We must recruit the very best and invest in their capacity to succeed. That means providing our servicemen and servicewomen with first-rate equipment, armor, incentives, and training -- including in foreign languages and other critical skills."

While reading this, I expected to see a plan on where he plans to get 65,000 soldiers and 27,000 marines. Obviously if we are in a war, the bigger the better right? But the point is HOW will you get those numbers? A Draft? Legalize human cloning? Some new incentive program not thought of yet?

To me this just seemed to be the trend of the entire essay, and honestly it's on par with every time I see him on television. And the press this time around, plays along, to my knowledge no one has asked him the hard questions like "Where do you plan to get the money for all this increased spending?" So my overall impression is that Obama is great at identifying problems, but, I have seen no evidence that his solutions have been well thought out.

Of course, it is probably wise for a person running for office to stay away from the hard questions. That would be my strategy. I just wish that in debates or in interviews someone would grow some stones to nail this kind of stuff down.

So my impression overall of Obama's debate strategy is this....

"The problem is [some hot issue], we need to do more [something], the current administration won't do [something], When I'm president, I'll do [something]".

If the "official" polls are to be believed, the strategy works I guess.

Romney's essay is pretty much the same. End the Iraq war, increase diplomacy, increase the military. However, Romney seems to have either a better ghost writer or he actually remembers how to present a persuasive argument.

For example, in regards to increasing the military, he says this.

"While we wage wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, U.S. troop levels and our investment in the military as a percentage of GDP remain lower than at any time of major conflict since World War II. "

This sounds like a fact, it's hard to argue with facts.

"First, we need to increase our investment in national defense. This means adding at least 100,000 troops and making a long-overdue investment in equipment, armament, weapons systems, and strategic defense."

Sounds familiar, that's what that other guy was essentially saying.

"After President George H. W. Bush left office, in 1993, the Clinton administration began to dismantle the military, taking advantage of what has been called a "peace dividend" from the end of the Cold War. It took a dividend, but we did not get the peace. It seems that our leaders had come to believe that war and security threats were gone forever; as Charles Krauthammer observed, we took a holiday from history. Meanwhile, we lost about 500,000 military personnel and about $50 billion a year in military spending. The U.S. Army lost four active divisions and two reserve divisions. The U.S. Navy lost almost 80 ships. The U.S. Air Force saw its active personnel decrease by 30 percent. The Marines' personnel dropped by 22,000."

Whoah, more facts to build a strong argument. Color me impressed. But what do you plan to do about it?

"The next president should commit to spending a minimum of four percent of GDP on national defense. Increased spending should not mean increased waste, however. A team of private-sector leaders and defense experts should carry out a stem-to-stern analysis of military purchasing. Accounts need to be thoroughly scrutinized to eliminate excessive contractor and supplier charges and prevent deals for equipment and programs that do more for politicians' popularity in their home districts than for the nation's protection. Congress needs to set stricter lobbying rules and keep a far more watchful eye on self-serving politicians, current and past, in regard to these matters."

Sounds like Mitt has actually thought about this stuff, as if he might win or something. So, my overall impression of Mitt's debate strategy after reading that essay is....

"The problem is [some hot issue], we need to do more [something], the next president needs to do A,B,C,D and E in order to accomplish [something] and because W,X,Y,Z".

AND this is the guy who gets accused of flip flopping? Of the 2 essays it is clear to me that Mitt put more effort into his arguments than Obama did. He seems to have a plan. Obama did not demonstrate any sort of tangible plan, I suspect that a speech writer wrote it for him or he used one of his old speeches or something. If all I had to go on was these 2 essays, Romney would clearly have my vote.

Other than that, it seems the more election cycles I live through, the less the 2 parties care to differentiate. Between these 2 candidates , a vote for either one of them is a vote for more military spending, and a continuing war on a tactic. No mention of a return to fiscal responsibility on either side. Though Romney's past at least leads me to believe he knows what fiscal responsibility means.