Laurence Vance writes “A Lesson for Libertarians”:
Never, ever believe anything a Republican presidential candidate says about foreign policy that sounds slightly libertarian or non-interventionist. Trump proves it. They can never be trusted.
My point isn’t about Vance – I know he is one of many who have offered such a sentiment in recent days; it is just that now that I have a few minutes to write this post, his comment is easily accessible.
I cannot say anything about “believe” or “trusted.” This isn’t the point of my post. Someone who believed or trusted can write that post.
I only have a simple question: when the one topic in question is the continuation of antagonism against a major nuclear power – even beyond the point of an existential crisis for the other power – how small a percentage chance is too small?
1.0%? 0.1%? 0.01?
If the only choice offered is between one candidate who says she will continue to antagonize the major nuclear power and a second candidate who says he will not, how small a chance is too small to bother?
Maybe I am being irrational or overly fearful, but I do not enjoy considering the future given the events of the last week. It isn’t just two large nuclear powers soon to come to blows; virtually every entity in the region faces an existential crisis: Israel, Saudi Arabia, Syria, Turkey, Iran, ISIS.
So, I will ask again: how small a chance is too small a chance?