I love when politicians use this type of rhetoric.

The idea behind the “citizens” is to make two groups–the public audience (us) and the politicians (them).

If you do it wrong, you’re considered part of “them” and the anger you’re invoking is reflected at you.

Do it right and it’s suddenly about “us” being wronged by “them”.

It may even manage to turn an insincere, transparent pander towards anti-establishment fervor into support for an anti-establishment candidate that shares the views of the establishment.

This video is processing – it'll appear automatically when it's done.

By politicians who use rhetoric to divide people into hostile groups.

This video is processing – it'll appear automatically when it's done.

Interesting word choice. In what way does defense need to be built up again?

Does he mean the budget despite the fact that defense spending is on the rise?

Maybe he’s referring to the Pentagon strategy for expanding defense globally. The only problem is that this means defense was already built and not in need of implied help.

We’re therefore building the structure of a new, transregional strategy for countering terrorism over the long term. This will be based on infrastructure we’ve already established in Afghanistan, the Levant, East Africa, and Southern Europe.

What does Kasich actually mean? We probably won’t get to hear him explain it in the next debate–if he’s around.

This video is processing – it'll appear automatically when it's done.

Most if not all the candidates believe–dogmatically almost–that the path to security is domination through force. But is it actually?

The choice before America has always been not how much force to use but whether solutions will be multilateral or unilateral.

Multilateral decisions accept that globalization has created an interdependent system. Therefore, it follows the United States is uniquely positioned as Earth’s superpower to create the first global community of shared interests, whatever they may be.

Unilateral decisions follow from the logic that the US as sole global power should create a global order benefiting itself and furthering its interests instead of calling on all members to better the collective. Its interests define the collective, not vice versa.

The multilateral can include coalitions of nations dedicating forces to missions, shared burdens and responsibilities for maintaining regional stability, and basically empowering international institutions that can either facilitate diplomatic or military solutions. All around, this would generally improve the competency of security measures put in place to deter terrorism.

The unilateral could include global surveillance programs, drone assassination programs, regime change, and the erosion of international institutions which oppose those political ventures. Unilateral programs have a plainly visible effect which we are only now acknowledging:

self-isolation, growing national paranoia, and increasing vulnerability to a globally spreading anti-American virus.

So consider this question one of the most important if for no other reason than it reveals a glaring assumption most if not all candidates hold: the world only matters when we have to make it better for ourselves, as opposed to making the planet better, in of itself.

This video is processing – it'll appear automatically when it's done.

To put this in perspective:

The President’s FY 2016 Budget provides $50.3 billion in discretionary funding for the Department of State and the U.S. Agency for International Development, including $7.0 billion in Overseas Contingency Operations.

Out of the entire budget, this is less than half of one percent.

Out of the Overseas Contingency Operations, it would be around three and a half percent.

Chump change dedicated to helping avert what could be the collapse of the developing world.

This video is processing – it'll appear automatically when it's done.

Translating this from Newspeak, it reads something like

We must recognize each other’s power and create a world order that caters to our interests first and foremost. Climate change is an interest we share but not the immediate objective of this global order.

This video is processing – it'll appear automatically when it's done.

The solution requires us to seriously re-examine every single aspect of our global civilization, including whether or not capitalism has any place in a future sustainable civilization.

This is not the same as saying we have a moral imperative to switch to another system. It’s simply asking whether we can actually keep capitalism and expect to maintain Earth’s biological diversity, modern living standards, and political and social relationships incumbent of capitalism that tend to disregard the state we leave our world in for future generations.

This video is processing – it'll appear automatically when it's done.

It will also likely mark the end of our global civilization, at least in its current form.

If we don’t make a deal in Paris that substantially cuts down climate change, we will most likely exceed the worst-case predictions and face prospects of ecological collapse–meaning the degradation if not collapse of global industrial civilization by the century’s end.

This video is processing – it'll appear automatically when it's done.