Has Trump the least knowledge in foreign affairs of any candidate in a century?

[President Johnson]

Has Donald Trump the least knowledge of any presidential candidate in the past 100 years? I say yes when you listen to all his statements and answers over the past months. I say he is also the candidate with the least knowledge how a government operates. I'm sure a majority of posters here know more than he does on these two topics.

[GeorgiaModerate]

I don't know about a century, but it certainly is true for all the elections I've followed, which is over a half century. 

Maybe Wendell Willkie in 1940?

[PresidentSamTilden]

He's gotta be in the bottom 3 or so. If George Wallace counts, he might be up there too, as a single issue reactionary candidate. I'm skeptical of Perot as well, since he was kind of isolationist.

[Catholics vs. Convicts]

Clearly

[Podgy the Bear]

I don't know about a century, but it certainly is true for all the elections I've followed, which is over a half century. 

Maybe Wendell Willkie in 1940?

A good article from last year by Michael Beschloss on Wendell Willkie and how he conducted his 1940 campaign.  By feigning an isolationism strategy, he made the election somewhat close but in the end, FDR won by a wide margin.   The electorate wasn't prepared to give the presidency to a businessman with no government experience (sound familiar?).

But in actuality, Willkie was a real internationalist.  He showed that after Pearl Harbor--operating as a special representative for the United States.  He traveled widely and provided considerable service for the country--advocating for a United Nations in the post-WWII era because working together (though not at all perfect) is better than doing it alone.

[Fuzzy Bear Loves Christian Missionaries]

Foreign policy is more complicated today because there is no longer the "binary choice" between Communism and its opponents.

Trump probably knows little of the inner workings of the State Department, but that knowledge hasn't made Hillary any more correct on her foreign policy judgements over the years.  Trump appears to have a real appreciation of how entangling alliances lead to war, and he has a conviction, however simple, that American policy, foreign and domestic, ought to advance the interests of the American people before all else.  That's a remarkably coherent worldview that millions of Americans share, but one that has not been well-projected since Ronald Reagan. 

[‼realJohnEwards‼]

Foreign policy is more complicated today because there is no longer the "binary choice" between Communism and its opponents.

Trump probably knows little of the inner workings of the State Department, but that knowledge hasn't made Hillary any more correct on her foreign policy judgements over the years.  Trump appears to have a real appreciation of how entangling alliances lead to war, and he has a conviction, however simple, that American policy, foreign and domestic, ought to advance the interests of the American people before all else.  That's a remarkably coherent worldview that millions of Americans share, but one that has not been well-projected since Ronald Reagan. 

If the "American People" are the only ones who matter, than why would he "waste" billions of dollars on ISIS, who are only a real threat to those money-grubbing Saudis and Turks?

[PresidentSamTilden]

Foreign policy is more complicated today because there is no longer the "binary choice" between Communism and its opponents.

Trump probably knows little of the inner workings of the State Department, but that knowledge hasn't made Hillary any more correct on her foreign policy judgements over the years.  Trump appears to have a real appreciation of how entangling alliances lead to war, and he has a conviction, however simple, that American policy, foreign and domestic, ought to advance the interests of the American people before all else.  That's a remarkably coherent worldview that millions of Americans share, but one that has not been well-projected since Ronald Reagan. 

A total lack of understanding is not the same as conviction. How does giving Saudi Arabia nuclear weapons and dismantling alliances that make us strong advance our interests?

[🦀🎂🦀🎂]

Foreign policy is more complicated today because there is no longer the "binary choice" between Communism and its opponents.

Trump probably knows little of the inner workings of the State Department, but that knowledge hasn't made Hillary any more correct on her foreign policy judgements over the years.  Trump appears to have a real appreciation of how entangling alliances lead to war, and he has a conviction, however simple, that American policy, foreign and domestic, ought to advance the interests of the American people before all else.  That's a remarkably coherent worldview that millions of Americans share, but one that has not been well-projected since Ronald Reagan. 

There was never such a binary choice in any stage of the Cold War. it was clearly not a straight up battle against communism, because various anti-Russian communist countries had marriages of conveniences with the States like PRC and Cambodia. There was vast internal conflict (none of it as binary as "hawk" vs "dove") over every aspect of the Cold War. I don't see how you can claim foreign relations back then was relatively simple.

[Mr. Smith]

He's gotta be in the bottom 3 or so. If George Wallace counts, he might be up there too, as a single issue reactionary candidate. I'm skeptical of Perot as well, since he was kind of isolationist.

Isolationism =/= Little knowledge of foreign affairs

[Wisconsin+17]

Well, given that Johnson doesn't know where Aleppo is, I would question whether Trump has the least knowledge of any candidate running in this election.

[SirMuxALot]

The knowledge scale here isn't 0 to 100.  It's -100 to +100.

If you know absolutely nothing about foreign policy, you're at zero.  If absolutely everything you know about foreign policy is wrong, you're at -100.

A great many of us would prefer to vote for Mr. Zero over Mrs. Minus-Hundred and hope he brings some people like Mr. Plus-Ninety-Five (John Bolton) onto his staff.

[ag]

The knowledge scale here isn't 0 to 100.  It's -100 to +100.

If you know absolutely nothing about foreign policy, you're at zero.  If absolutely everything you know about foreign policy is wrong, you're at -100.

A great many of us would prefer to vote for Mr. Zero over Mrs. Minus-Hundred and hope he brings some people like Mr. Plus-Ninety-Five (John Bolton) onto his staff.

Trump is minus infinity on this scale. A vote for Trump is a vote against the very existence of the United States of America (and, with huge probability, against the existence of humanity).

[Arbitrage1980]

The knowledge scale here isn't 0 to 100.  It's -100 to +100.

If you know absolutely nothing about foreign policy, you're at zero.  If absolutely everything you know about foreign policy is wrong, you're at -100.

A great many of us would prefer to vote for Mr. Zero over Mrs. Minus-Hundred and hope he brings some people like Mr. Plus-Ninety-Five (John Bolton) onto his staff.

Trump is minus infinity on this scale. A vote for Trump is a vote against the very existence of the United States of America (and, with huge probability, against the existence of humanity).

And Hillary will open our borders to millions of third world immigrants and radical Muslims and crush economic growth by raising taxes to pay for her pet socialist projects.

I hate Trump, but between those two, I will take Trump, who at least loves America, wants to protect our borders, and will cut taxes and regulations.

[ag]

The knowledge scale here isn't 0 to 100.  It's -100 to +100.

If you know absolutely nothing about foreign policy, you're at zero.  If absolutely everything you know about foreign policy is wrong, you're at -100.

A great many of us would prefer to vote for Mr. Zero over Mrs. Minus-Hundred and hope he brings some people like Mr. Plus-Ninety-Five (John Bolton) onto his staff.

Trump is minus infinity on this scale. A vote for Trump is a vote against the very existence of the United States of America (and, with huge probability, against the existence of humanity).

And Hillary will open our borders to millions of third world immigrants and radical Muslims and crush economic growth by raising taxes to pay for her pet socialist projects.

I hate Trump, but between those two, I will take Trump, who at least loves America, wants to protect our borders, and will cut taxes and regulations.

Trump will start by destroying the US economy before launching the United States into a nuclear holocaust. Trump and his supporters (including, of course, yourself) profoundly hate America and want to destroy it.

[Arbitrage1980]

The knowledge scale here isn't 0 to 100.  It's -100 to +100.

If you know absolutely nothing about foreign policy, you're at zero.  If absolutely everything you know about foreign policy is wrong, you're at -100.

A great many of us would prefer to vote for Mr. Zero over Mrs. Minus-Hundred and hope he brings some people like Mr. Plus-Ninety-Five (John Bolton) onto his staff.

Trump is minus infinity on this scale. A vote for Trump is a vote against the very existence of the United States of America (and, with huge probability, against the existence of humanity).

And Hillary will open our borders to millions of third world immigrants and radical Muslims and crush economic growth by raising taxes to pay for her pet socialist projects.

I hate Trump, but between those two, I will take Trump, who at least loves America, wants to protect our borders, and will cut taxes and regulations.

Trump will start by destroying the US economy before launching the United States into a nuclear holocaust. Trump and his supporters (including, of course, yourself) profoundly hate America and want to destroy it.

Lol. I'm not a Trump supporter; I'm gonna vote Johnson or write someone in. I am a lifelong conservative Republican though, and the Democratic Party has moved so far to the left that it is basically a socialist party that is obsessed with punishing the successful, opening our borders to anyone who wants to come, and pushing the agenda of racially divisive social justice warriors.

The United States has survived a british invasion during the war of 1812, civil war, great depression, world war II, social upheavals of the 60's, stagflation and malaise of the late 70's, and 9/11. It's going to survive a Trump presidency. Stop being so pessimistic about our country.

[‼realJohnEwards‼]

The knowledge scale here isn't 0 to 100.  It's -100 to +100.

If you know absolutely nothing about foreign policy, you're at zero.  If absolutely everything you know about foreign policy is wrong, you're at -100.

A great many of us would prefer to vote for Mr. Zero over Mrs. Minus-Hundred and hope he brings some people like Mr. Plus-Ninety-Five (John Bolton) onto his staff.

Trump is minus infinity on this scale. A vote for Trump is a vote against the very existence of the United States of America (and, with huge probability, against the existence of humanity).

And Hillary will open our borders to millions of third world immigrants and radical Muslims and crush economic growth by raising taxes to pay for her pet socialist projects.

I hate Trump, but between those two, I will take Trump, who at least loves America, wants to protect our borders, and will cut taxes and regulations.

Trump will start by destroying the US economy before launching the United States into a nuclear holocaust. Trump and his supporters (including, of course, yourself) profoundly hate America and want to destroy it.

Lol. I'm not a Trump supporter; I'm gonna vote Johnson or write someone in. I am a lifelong conservative Republican though, and the Democratic Party has moved so far to the left that it is basically a socialist party that is obsessed with punishing the successful, opening our borders to anyone who wants to come, and pushing the agenda of racially divisive social justice warriors.

The United States has survived a british invasion during the war of 1812, civil war, great depression, world war II, social upheavals of the 60's, stagflation and malaise of the late 70's, and 9/11. It's going to survive a Trump presidency. Stop being so pessimistic about our country.

The thing is, none of those involved a direct conflict with a nuclear-armed country. That is what we are afraid Trump might launch us into, especially since he has talked about the possibility of pre-emptive strikes in places like Western Europe (absurd).

[ag]

The knowledge scale here isn't 0 to 100.  It's -100 to +100.

If you know absolutely nothing about foreign policy, you're at zero.  If absolutely everything you know about foreign policy is wrong, you're at -100.

A great many of us would prefer to vote for Mr. Zero over Mrs. Minus-Hundred and hope he brings some people like Mr. Plus-Ninety-Five (John Bolton) onto his staff.

Trump is minus infinity on this scale. A vote for Trump is a vote against the very existence of the United States of America (and, with huge probability, against the existence of humanity).

And Hillary will open our borders to millions of third world immigrants and radical Muslims and crush economic growth by raising taxes to pay for her pet socialist projects.

I hate Trump, but between those two, I will take Trump, who at least loves America, wants to protect our borders, and will cut taxes and regulations.

Trump will start by destroying the US economy before launching the United States into a nuclear holocaust. Trump and his supporters (including, of course, yourself) profoundly hate America and want to destroy it.

Lol. I'm not a Trump supporter; I'm gonna vote Johnson or write someone in. I am a lifelong conservative Republican though, and the Democratic Party has moved so far to the left that it is basically a socialist party that is obsessed with punishing the successful, opening our borders to anyone who wants to come, and pushing the agenda of racially divisive social justice warriors.

The United States has survived a british invasion during the war of 1812, civil war, great depression, world war II, social upheavals of the 60's, stagflation and malaise of the late 70's, and 9/11. It's going to survive a Trump presidency. Stop being so pessimistic about our country.

It is not only your country. I doubt the world would survive a Trump presidency.

[Frodo]

Dwight Eisenhower's victory over the isolationists in the GOP looks like it was only temporary, it seems.....   

[angus]

Has Donald Trump the least knowledge of any presidential candidate in the past 100 years?

He's already ahead of George W. Bush in this regard, and that's impressive.  The total sum of my experiences only span 49.5 years, of which I've only paid attention to presidential politics for the past 36 or so.  I'm not qualified answer the question, but I think it's a possibility.

[ag]

The United States has survived a british invasion during the war of 1812, civil war, great depression, world war II, social upheavals of the 60's, stagflation and malaise of the late 70's, and 9/11. It's going to survive a Trump presidency. Stop being so pessimistic about our country.

And, of course, the US has never elected anybody like Trump to presidency. Trump is a clear and present danger to all of us.

[Kingpoleon]

The United States has survived a british invasion during the war of 1812, civil war, great depression, world war II, social upheavals of the 60's, stagflation and malaise of the late 70's, and 9/11. It's going to survive a Trump presidency. Stop being so pessimistic about our country.

And, of course, the US has never elected anybody like Trump to presidency. Trump is a clear and present danger to all of us.

We've elected worse people - Andrew Jackson, James Buchanan, Andrew Johnson, and Woodrow Wilson among them.

[ag]

The United States has survived a british invasion during the war of 1812, civil war, great depression, world war II, social upheavals of the 60's, stagflation and malaise of the late 70's, and 9/11. It's going to survive a Trump presidency. Stop being so pessimistic about our country.

And, of course, the US has never elected anybody like Trump to presidency. Trump is a clear and present danger to all of us.

We've elected worse people - Andrew Jackson, James Buchanan, Andrew Johnson, and Woodrow Wilson among them.

None of them was remotely similar. All of them were infinitely better presidents than Trump would be.  This is not even funny.

[angus]

Wilson?!  (We could quibble about a few of the other names on the list but Wilson?)  He had a PhD in government, and as an undergraduate studied German and political science, both very important for understanding global affairs for his time.  He also had an academic career which involved teaching the classics as well as global economics.  Before he was elected president, he had published articles regarding the parliamentary system and its potential benefits to the US should it be adopted here, and had written a great deal about Russia, France, and Germany, all important states at the time of his first inauguaration.  

I'm not a huge fan of Wilson, and I am not defending his policies while president, but of all the presidents to pick on in a thread about a lack of knowledge about foreign policy, Wilson seems particularly out of place.  The inclusion of Wilson in a post in this thread seems awfully strange.

[andrew_c]

There is no doubt that Trump has little, if any knowledge of foreign affairs.  A Trump presidency would be a existential threat to the United States and its allies.