Jessica Mathews has added another entry in the bizarre genre of articles that complain about supposed neglect of foreign policy by 2020 Democratic candidates. This section in particular was stunning in how wrong it was:

Warren and Sanders agree on many things, but while she errs in saying too much, he barely touches on foreign policy [bold mine-DL]. You have to scroll far down the Sanders website to find the little he has to say about it. He speaks cogently on the stump about the need to “privilege diplomacy,” to work more closely with allies, and to favor a posture of “partnership, rather than dominance,” but he has not gone beyond such generalities except in calling for changes in the US–Saudi relationship and ending US support that prolongs the killing in Yemen. His long-standing opposition to American interventions in Latin America and his approval of governments that profess concern for the poor have led him to express support for highly repressive leftist regimes in the likes of Nicaragua, Venezuela, and Bolivia. This could well prove to be heavy political baggage in a presidential election.

Mathews’ main argument is that Democratic candidates “have had relatively little to say” about foreign policy problems. This is a variation on a tired, inaccurate theme that I have been tracking for the last seven or eight months. No matter how many times the candidates directly address these issues, we are told that they almost never talk about the subject. Mathews’ claim that Sanders has expressed “support” for the current governments in Bolivia, Nicaragua, and Venezuela is misleading at best.

Mathews could not have known about Warren and Sanders’ responses to the administration’s disgraceful annexation and apartheid plan when she wrote this article, but those responses are a perfect example of how both of those candidates talk about these issues on a regular basis and never get any credit for it. Here was Warren’s immediate response:

Trump's "peace plan" is a rubber stamp for annexation and offers no chance for a real Palestinian state. Releasing a plan without negotiating with Palestinians isn't diplomacy, it's a sham. I will oppose unilateral annexation in any form—and reverse any policy that supports it.

— Elizabeth Warren (@ewarren) January 28, 2020

Sanders’ response followed soon thereafter:

It must end the Israeli occupation and enable Palestinian self-determination in an independent state of their own alongside a secure Israel. Trump's so-called 'peace deal' doesn't come close, and will only perpetuate the conflict. It is unacceptable.

— Bernie Sanders (@SenSanders) January 28, 2020

For candidates that supposedly don’t say much about foreign policy, Warren and Sanders are remarkably verbose.

What Mathews doesn’t consider or mention is the foreign policy work that they have been doing over the last couple of years. Sanders doesn’t just talk about changing the U.S.-Saudi relationship. He has been one of the main leaders in the Senate insisting on making those changes, and he was instrumental in sponsoring and leading the first successful use of the War Powers Resolution by Congress. Sanders has been vocal in his criticism of Trump’s decision to use force to carry out an illegal assassination, and he was an early and prescient opponent of Trump’s economic war on Iran. Along with his colleagues in the House, he has been one of the main opponents of the administration’s escalation against Iran:

I applaud the House of Representatives for passing the Stop War Against Iran Act that I introduced with @RepRoKhanna, and @RepBarbaraLee's repeal of the 2002 Authorization for Use of Military Force.

The Senate must now take up these vital bills to stop endless war. https://t.co/iQgUxnKlO5

— Bernie Sanders (@SenSanders) January 30, 2020

He delivered an extensive foreign policy address in 2017 that has served as the foundation for his campaign platform. In short, you have to ignore most of what Sanders has said over the last several years to claim that he barely talks about foreign policy.

Compared to many other presidential candidates in the past, the 2020 Democratic field has spent a fair amount of time on foreign policy. There was virtually no foreign policy debate to speak of in 2015 and 2016 on the Democratic side. This time around we have a much better idea of what all the leading Democratic candidates want to do differently and how they propose to do it. It is true that the presidential debates have given foreign policy short shrift as they always do. The candidates are limited in what they can say because of the questions they are asked at these events. Despite those limitations, the candidates have presented their foreign policy views to the public at considerable length and there has been quite a lot of activity and new thinking among foreign policy progressives over the last few years that are informing and shaping the debate among the candidates. In order to assess these arguments, it is necessary first to acknowledge that they are being made. It is almost February 2020, and it seems as if a lot of media outlets still haven’t figured out that a debate is taking place.

Don’t take it from me. Take it from someone who is taking part in shaping that debate:

I swear this was written in 2016, not today. It's Trumpian in its ignorance of the foreign policy debates happening among Dems. The leading candidates (esp Warren and Sanders) have been vocal about how they think and how that's different from today. https://t.co/TlLfjH3aIQ

— Van Jackson (@WonkVJ) January 30, 2020

It’s a shame that so many observers are missing out on the foreign policy debate taking place among Democratic candidates and progressive foreign policy professionals, because this is the debate that is going to define Democratic foreign policy thinking in this election and over the coming decade.