Examining the issues and how the candidates relate to them is crucial as we enter the home stretch of one of the strangest presidential elections ever. The last post exposed abortion as an emotional issue, lacking honest discussion. It’s important to approach such emotional problems with a balanced, rational perspective, considering the future demographics if abortion lacks any guardrails. Neither side offers depth to the debate, leaving us open to easily foreseen errors.

Unlike abortion, both candidates have four-year governing records so that we can compare their governing principles and results. Both faced domestic and foreign challenges, and the public had the basis to judge the results.

Domestically, the Trump administration turned over a growing, non-inflationary economy. The pandemic recovery might have been even more robust if Blue States had opened up at the same pace as Red.

Initially relying on his bureaucratic medical advisors, Trump made a hasty decision to shut down most of the nation and provide compensation to offset the resulting losses. However, he soon reversed his stance and favored reopening schools and businesses. Unfortunately, most Blue states were slow to follow, and we are still grappling with the prolonged effects of the lockdown, particularly in education. The impact of the pandemic on our economy and education system cannot be overstated.

Even with Trump’s lockdown and compensation overspending, by the time Biden took over, the nation was on its way to returning to the favorable economic conditions evident before the pandemic. By Biden’s inauguration, a million people got COVID-19 vaccine shots daily. No matter what the Kamala says, Bided-Harris came in on a favorable wave.

The following almost four years provide ample contrast to make comparisons. On issues at home, we can ask Ronald Reagan’s classic question, “Are you better off today? ‘However, while our elections are generally decided on domestic issues, we overlook foreign affairs at our peril.

Under Trump, the U.S. position abroad was relatively quiet. Our adversaries made few overt moves. The then-low oil prices, due in large part to U.S. production, denied Russia, Iran, and Venezuela the funds to cause trouble. Trump supplied Javelin anti-tank missiles to Ukraine, took out a prominent Iranian leader, and slapped tariffs on China. Whether you like him or his methods, ISIS lost its strongholds.

Since Trump left, we’ve had the Afgan debacle, followed by Russia invading Ukraine. Now we’ve added the Mideast Gaza War. While American troops aren’t involved, we are supplying Ukraine and Israel with arms to prevent they’re losing. Because we’ve been reticent to provide the type of weapons needed for a Ukrainian victory, and even when we relent and supply some, we restrict their use against Russian bases used to attack Ukraine.

Instead of backing Israel and eliminating Hamas as wholly and quickly as possible in Gaza, the Biden administration slowed arms and munitions to push a ceasefire. According to the administration, the goal is to prevent a widening war engulfing us.

The result is that the fighting has spread to the Russian Territory, Lebanon, and Iran. Instead of stopping the bleeding, we’ve let the wounds worsen.

Concentrating our resources in Europe and the Middle East weakens our position with our most potent adversary, China. How is this making us safer?

Readers of this blog know that I and others recommended more robust measures in Ukraine and the Middle East. How do you not allow Ukraine to hit back at Russian facilities used in killing its people? Separating Gazan civilians, especially women, children, and the infirm, from Hamas should be a given. In each case, the administration went in the opposite direction.  

American power is diminished across the globe. In Africa, Niger kicks us out, abandoning our ant-terrorist bases. China pushes around our ally, the Philippines, and where are we?

In January 2021, few thought World War III could be around the corner. Now, across the globe, fires are spreading, threatening the Apocalypse. Rather than strengthening our military abilities by adding to our defense budget, the administration has reduced defense spending in real terms while spending trillions on “Global warming.”

What do you think is a significant threat to us and the rest of humanity? World War III or a few degrees rise in temperatures? What are the priorities of the candidates? Trump expanded the defense budget while downplaying climate change. Biden-Harris did the opposite.

While many players are likely on Trump’s national security team, we have yet to determine who Harris will rely on for advice in this crucial area. All we know of her staff is its high turnover rate. Contrast this with the prominence of Vice President Pence’s national security advisor, General Keith Kellog.

Will she keep most of the Biden team in place, which has resulted in our present predicament? Remember, nobody was fired or forced to resign over the Afgan debacle or for any of the missteps since. All we know is Secretary of State Anthony Blinken has ruled serving to “spend more time with his children.”

Given the high stakes she’ll face if elected, we have every right to know her national security thinking and who she relies on for advice. So far, the press has shed no light on this area. Questions need to be asked, but most media are reluctant to ask the Democratic nominee anything on any subject, much less national security.

Given our increasingly precarious international position, we need the candidates to discuss these issues. Next week’s debate likely will be dominated by domestic issues. My recommendation is another debate solely on National security. It’s that important.