Ready to Lead? NSN Policy Paper Explores the 2012 Candidates and Foreign Policy
Washington, D.C. – Less than one year from today, Americans will choose their commander-in-chief. A world that poses an array of complex foreign policy challenges awaits. Yet conservative challengers for the presidency have sidestepped the tough issues and reflexively opposed a range of policies with broad bipartisan support. Despite the veneer of anti-establishment sentiment in this year’s field and the fiscal pressures on U.S. spending abroad, the dominance of neoconservative advisors suggests a return of the first-term George W. Bush approach to the world.
In a new paper, “Ready to Lead? The 2012 Candidates and Foreign Policy,” the National Security Network explores what Americans are seeking in a president when it comes to foreign affairs and evaluates what the presidential campaign so far has revealed about the challengers’ readiness to manage America’s relations with the world:
-
The Challenge: “Build the Sources of American Strength.” Americans want our country to be a major player in world affairs, with a strong military, robust diplomacy and the self-confidence to partner with allies. At the same time, they insist on leadership that matches commitments to resources and ensures that action abroad meets core needs at home.
-
Ideology Over Policy: “Bad Analysis and Worse Solutions.” Across the ideological spectrum, from the New York Times editorial board to conservative columnist George Will, commentators say that the knowledge and analyses of candidates fails to rise to the level of challenges we face.
-
Results Versus Rhetoric: Opposition as a Guiding Principle. On any number of issues – be it Afghanistan, Libya, Iran, defense spending or arms reduction – the candidates’ positions are defined by reflexive opposition to the policies of the Obama administration, against the advice of nonpartisan experts and military leaders.
-
Back to the Future: The George W. Bush Era Revisited. Candidates combine the Tea Party’s dislike of international institutions with an appetite for unilateral military adventures.
-
Not Measuring Up to Leadership. This campaign season has seen the conservative realist establishment pushed aside and accelerated the decline of a tradition in American foreign policy of restrained and responsible forward-looking leadership of the global system.
-
A Shrinking Margin for Error. There will be real costs for failing to understand and adapt to changes in the international landscape, whether the issue is China’s nuclear weapons or the role of coalitions in Libya – and the world won’t wait.
For a PDF of the report, click here. To view the report as a web page, click here.
###
