This column is to appear in the Augusta Business Chronicle (November 2000).  Bore, Gush, or Cheneyman? The nearly universal acclaim the civility of the Cheney/Lieberman debate received, as opposed to the more impolite exchanges between Mr. Gore and Mr. Bush, does not relieve voters from their duty to examine the proposals on the table. While politeness, "class" if you will, is important, in the end what counts is what these men wish to do when they get into the White House. But there's one rub already. All four candidates talk as if the President of the United States possesses dictatorial powers. Wrong! Why did all the other presidents not keep their ("read my lips: no new taxes") promises? In large part because there are other institutions of federal government, the US House of Representatives and the US Senate, that need to concur with presidential plans. This has compromise written all over it, whatever the candidates promise. A related rub therefore is that the candidates talk far too much about domestic policy, and journalists ask far too many irrelevant questions. Yes, education, health, domestic economy, crime, drugs, environment, race relations, and social security and Medicare, are important issues, but the overriding fact is that the president's influence on domestic policy, even domestic federal policy, let alone state and local policy, is relatively small. Just think of Clinton's major achievements. They all are in the foreign policy arena, from international trade agreements (NAFTA, WTO) to the various Yugoslavian wars (Croatia, Bosnia, Kosovo). Even the major lack of achievement – peace in the Middle East – is a foreign policy issue.  Think of Bush, Sr.'s major achievement: right, it was the Persian Gulf war. Think of Reagan's major achievement: correct, he vastly increased US military spending (and US debt) and vicariously fought the final stages of the cold war with the former Soviet Union. Foreign policy dominates. Indeed, for the middle-aged and elderly amongst you, think back president by president. Before Reagan there was Carter, then Ford serving out Nixon's term, then Johnson, then Kennedy, and before him, in the late 1950s, there was Dwight Eisenhower. For each one, foreign policy issues mark their presidential term. Yes, even Gerald Ford, who primarily had to deal with the first so-called oil shock in the aftermath of the 1973 Arab-Israeli war. And, yes, even Johnson, with whose name we associate the phrase "great society programs," but who got the US really deeply into the morass that was Vietnam! But what about the US economy? Is that not a legitimate domestic achievement of the Clinton/Gore years? Well, the one good one-liner Bush got off against Gore in their first debate was that the economy may have done more for Clinton/Gore than Clinton/Gore did for the economy. The success of the US economy during the 1990s is explained by three major aspects: first, the international trade deals achieved early in the Clinton/Gore term; second, the squabbling among the President and the Republican majority in Congress during the Gingrich years that brought about a deadlock on government spending and eventually resulted in a sustained yearly budget surplus; and third, Mr. Greenspan's independent monetary policy to which neither Republicans nor Democrats contributed one farthing. In a word, you can safely ignore what the candidates have to say on domestic policy! Domestic policy will be mediated via Congress. As before, so in future: whatever happens in the end will be one great compromise. But do not ignore what the candidates say on foreign policy where the president has much more straightforward powers. Here, regrettably, neither the Bush/Cheney nor the Gore/Lieberman tickets appear strong. Unlike his father, Bush, Jr. has zero foreign policy expertise, and Cheney's is limited to his years as Secretary of Defense. But military posture does not comprise the entire scope of foreign policy. To the contrary, since the modern world much relies on persuasion, it would be dangerous to pivot around power as the primary means of diplomacy. Diplomacy and peace are better buys than bombs and wars. Lieberman is of Jewish background, but that does not make for foreign policy expertise. Gore has been vice-president for eight years and was involved in important foreign policy decisions but I haven't heard him say much articulate on foreign policy and draw mostly a blank on his objectives. I do like his general inclination that is bend toward international cooperation, but for election purposes that's pretty weak coffee!  In sum, it appears that this year we need to choose between weak coffee and no coffee at all. Granted, this is not an exciting choice but you do need to go out and vote. It's your civic duty! Dr. J. Brauer is Professor of Economics at Augusta State University's College of Business Administration. He can best be reached via his web site (http://www.aug.edu/~sbajmb).