The debates, however, were not completely without meaning. Though we learned very little about policy positions that we didn’t already know, it was a moment in which U.S. paternalism and egoism took center stage. The language we use to talk about foreign policy is not just about whether Obama or Romney think we should bomb Syria, or how we should deal with Afghanistan, even though those are important things to know about a President. It also reflects how we think about other countries and our relationships with them. When we talk about Iran and how it would be “completely unacceptable” for Iran to gain nuclear capability, it begs the question—when did we get elected in Iran? At what point did we decide that we could dictate what a country could and could not do? Of course the United States has been doing that since we decided that Germany had no right to violate the sovereignty of other nations and subjugate them (i.e. World War I). Ironically, the candidates both agreed that should the sanctions fail we would use military force to secure our own safety. In 1963 John F. Kennedy delivered his famous “American University” speech in which he declared that, “the world knows that America will never start a war.” To imply that we would violate the sanctity of sovereignty for our own sake is pride at it’s most dangerous. To boldly claim that war is justified if it keeps America safe opens a door that could lead to a new era in U.S. colonization in which any country that could be labeled “dangerous” runs the risk of invasion. The fact that Romney and Obama pledge to use violence if necessary is deeply problematic, and that the public sees this as an option in the future is even more cause for concern.

Another example of U.S. paternalism and egoism was exemplified in the conversation on Pakistan. Bob Schieffer asked Romney if it was time for the U.S. to “divorce” Pakistan and stop sending billions in “aid” to a country that “still provides safe haven for terrorists.” His reply was simple. We cannot sever our ties with Pakistan because they have nuclear weapons, and if they become a failed state terrorists will use those weapons to bomb us. This, of course, implies that if Pakistan is not a democratic nation, then it is a failed nation. Romney then goes on to argue that in order to “save” nations like Pakistan, the US must create an “effective and comprehensive strategy to help move the world away from terror and Islamic extremism.” The implication is that the Arab countries like Egypt, Libya, or Pakistan first need us to identify those threats for them, and then “help” neutralize them. Again we see Obama and Romney very casually discussing what in essence is a violation of state sovereignty. Imagine for a moment if Hu Jintao or Kim Jong-un gave a speech in which they stated they would create a comprehensive plan to move America away from extremist capitalism and towards a more communist system of government. Hard to imagine? That might be because it seems to be the sole responsibility of the U.S. to craft a domestic policy for the world.

As the campaign season comes to a close, many of these same policies and opinions will be repeated again (and again…and again). Perhaps listeners will become more enamored with the arguments once they’ve been repeated ad-nauseam. Or perhaps listeners will become more critical of the language used to communicate policy and will look beyond the words to see the ideological underpinnings and their consequences for the U.S. and for the world. And if I keep trying, maybe I’ll come to like mushrooms.

What neither of these questions gets at is the issue of what kind of President, or Vice-President, will be in the White House. By forcing viewers to consistently think in a win/lose paradigm, where the only criteria to win is fact based, we miss the larger implications of these debates, namely, what they tell us about the values that guide these candidates and the larger campaigns. There were two particular moments in the debate that gave voters insight into Biden and Ryan specifically and the campaigns more generally.

The first is a question of foreign policy. During a heated conversation on the topic of Syria moderator Martha Raddatz turned the question from specifics to general, and asked Paul Ryan his criteria for intervention, not just in Syria, but worldwide. His answer was simple. Intervention is appropriate when it is “in the national interests of the American people.” Raddatz pushed him on this answer by bringing up the issue of humanitarian intervention. Ryan merely reiterated that intervention must “be in the strategic national interests of our country.” Regardless of whether you agree with Ryan, this is an answer that provides a lot of insight into the underlying values of a Romney/Ryan ticket in regards to foreign policy. At the end of Word War II, President Truman stated that, “it must be the policy of the United States to support free peoples who are resisting attempted subjugation by armed minorities or outside pressures.” Since then this has been a determining factor in foreign policy—just look at our justifications for the first Gulf War, and later justifications for the current Iraqi war. However, Ryan’s take on this policy frames the issue not as a matter of spreading freedom and democracy, but as one of personal interest. Democracy is only worth fighting for when it benefits the United States. This is not a new position on foreign policy, but for Ryan to state it so boldly and unequivocally is telling. Following this line of argument, voters have to ask themselves, what does this mean for our national identity? Are we ultimately a selfish country that can and should ignore mass genocide if intervention is not in the interests of America? What will the impact be on other forms of national policy? Will we tolerate corrupt governments if it’s in our best interest? Are we ready to abandon the tradition of liberal internationalism dating back to Woodrow Wilson in order to adopt a strategy of political realism vis-à-vis Nixon?

The second question I would like to touch on was raised by Raddatz towards the end of the debate, when she questioned both Biden and Ryan on their Catholic religion and it’s impact on the issue of abortion. Both candidates had thoughtful, measured answers to this question. Ryan argued that the private and the public cannot be separated, that his faith is a part of who he is and informs the way he sees the world, particularly in the case of abortion. Biden, on the other hand, acknowledged the role religion played in his personal life, that he accepts the Catholic Church’s stance on abortion, but that he refuses to “impose [my religion] on equally devout Christians and Muslims and Jews.” What this question really answers for voters is bigger than just the abortion issue though. It tells us that religion will drive Ryan’s policy, whereas policy and religion are largely separate for Biden. This is an important aspect of Biden and Ryan’s character, and reveals to us a deeper understanding of how they think and reason, and how they will handle any number of issues in the future. It also begs the question of the role of religion in Mitt Romney’s personal and political life. We are currently in the middle of yet another historic campaign, where neither candidate fully conforms to the Presidential norms of white and Christian. In the past Obama has had to account for both his race and, most notably in 2008, his religion, while Romney has yet to address either of these issues. Ryan has obviously cued voters in to the role of religion in his political life, but in the next Presidential debate, voters should ask themselves, what role does it play for Mitt Romney?