With Romney Speech, Momentum Builds for Progressive Foreign Policy
A striking reality underlies this year’s political debate on national security – the core consensus around which the public, experts and decision-makers unite has its origins in a set of responsible, progressive policies. This year’s politics involve conservatives trying to co-opt the center and continue with chest-thumping rhetoric, while offering little in the way of concrete strategy or policy alternatives that recognize fiscal reality or the economic foundations of American power.
As national security plays large in the campaign trail, progressives remain dominant.
Progressives lead in substantive thinking: Slate national security columnist Fred Kaplan explains that national security discourse on the campaign trail has “cemented the fact that the Democratic party is now the party of national-security policy; not just a wise or thoughtful foreign and military policy, but any kind of thinking whatsoever about matters beyond the water’s edge.”
The public favors progressive solutions: Dan Drezner of Foreign Policy Magazine comments on the revealing results of a recent public opinion study and what it means for the future: “[I]f the Chicago Council results are accurate, independents basically want the exact opposite of what Mitt Romney is selling them… He wants to boost defense spending rather than cut it. He certainly wants to give the appearance that he would pursue a more hawkish policy towards Iran, Syria, Russia, North Korea, China and illegal immigrants than Barack Obama. That’s great — except it turns out most of America — and independents in particular — want pretty much the opposite of that… If you read the whole report, what’s striking is how much the majority view on foreign policy jibes with what the Obama administration has been doing in the world: military retrenchment from the Greater Middle East, a reliance on diplomacy and sanctions to deal with rogue states, a refocusing on East Asia, and prudent cuts in defense spending.”
On national security, Romney continues to prove unreliable.
Flip-flopping on key issues: As David Sanger explains, Romney’s speech on Monday “appeared to glide past positions Mr. Romney himself took more than a year ago, when he voiced opposition to expanding the intervention in Libya to hunt down Col. Muammar el-Qaddafi with what he termed insufficient resources. He called it ‘mission creep and mission muddle,’ though within months Mr. Qaddafi was gone. And last spring, Mr. Romney was caught on tape telling donors he believed there was ‘just no way’ a two-state solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict could work.”
Moving to the center: After Romney’s speech, Ben Adler observed that “Romney’s flip-flop to center continues with foreign policy,” adding, “[g]iven President Obama’s success in combating Al Qaeda, Romney has been largely at a loss as to how to draw a contrast on national security.” As a result, many of Romney’s flip-flops have resulted in policies close to or the same as those already in place. On Afghanistan, for example, Romney said, he would work to ensure a “‘real and successful transition’ of security control to Afghan forces ‘by the end of 2014.’ That is basically a word-for-word recitation of Obama’s policy. Which Romney has criticized in the past,” explains Eugene Robinson.
A strategy of vagueness: Reflecting on criticism of President Obama’s foreign policy, the Washington Post asks, “So how would Mr. Romney remedy these errors? That’s where the weakness of his speech lay: It was hard to detect what tangible new steps the challenger would take.” But there is evidence that Romney’s vagueness may be the result of an intentional strategy to avoid commitments on hard issues. As David Sanger reports, “‘Would he take the lead in bombing Iran if the mullahs were getting too close to a bomb, or just back up the Israelis?’ one of his senior advisers asked last week. ‘Would he push for peace with the Palestinians, or just live with the status quo? He’s left himself a lot of wiggle room.’”
[David Sanger, 10/8/12. Ben Adler, 10/8/12. Eugene Robinson, 10/8/12. Washington Post, 10/8/12]
Out of touch world views misunderstand American strength.
Costly, militarized approaches to national security lack strategic thinking. Conservative leaders have yet to explain how to pay for Mitt Romney’s proposed $2 trillion dollar Pentagon increase or its strategic rationale. Former Secretary of the Navy, Richard Danzig, explains, “Governor Romney has said ‘I’ll invest 4% GDP in defense.’ It has nothing to do with strategy. It has nothing to do with balancing our strength. It’s just a number out of the air. It’s as though we’ve moved from etch-a-sketch to paint by numbers.”
Hardnosed hawkishness is not effective or affordable. Justin Vaisse of Brookings notes that, “a posture of uncompromising hawkishness (Iran), toughness (Russia, China), or conditionality (Egypt; foreign aid) vis-à-vis the rest of the world –what James Traub dubbed the ‘more enemies, fewer friends doctrine’ – might not be the most effective way to fulfill America’s objectives. This is all the more true that America’s resources will necessarily be strained in the next four years, and that the issue of the debt will loom large.”
Conservative leaders continue to avoid the economic foundations of American power against the wishes of top advisors. Senior advisors within the GOP have joined bipartisan calls for a balanced approach, to no avail. Robert Zoellick, a senior member of the Romney campaign, explains, “Earlier this year, Bob Carr, Australia’s foreign minister and a longtime friend of the United States, observed with Aussie clarity: ‘The United States is one budget deal away from restoring its global preeminence.’… Carr’s insight — that the connection between economics and security will determine America’s future — is sound and persuasive.”
[Richard Danzig via Defense News, 10/12. Justin Vaisse, 10/8/12. Robert Zoellick, 11/12.]
What We’re Reading
Libya’s national congress dismissed the newly elected prime minister in a vote of no confidence, underscoring the difficulties of forming a government which can unite the country’s factions and regions.
Taliban gunmen in Pakistan shot and seriously wounded a 14-year-old schoolgirl who rose to fame for speaking out against the militants and campaigning for peace.
Iraq bought more than $4.2 billion in weapons from Russia.
A court in Azerbaijan sentenced 22 people to lengthy jail terms for assisting Iran’s Revolutionary Guards in alleged terrorist plots against U.S. and Israeli targets.
North Korea says it has missiles that can hit the U.S. mainland, in a statement two days after South Korea unveiled a missile deal with the U.S.
NATO says it has drawn up plans to defend Turkey if necessary against any further spillover of violence from Syria.
Greek police fired teargas and stun grenades as protesters in central Athens tried to break through a barrier and reach visiting German Chancellor Angela Merkel.
Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez won his reelection campaign with 55% of the vote.
One out of every eight people in the world is chronically undernourished according to the UN, which warns rising food prices could reverse gains in the fight against hunger.
The Supreme Court of the Philippines suspended a new Internet law that critics had said could lead to imprisonment for sharing posts on social media.
Commentary of the Day
Leslie Gelb explores the role of compromise and concessions in resolving the Cuban Missile Crisis.
Douglas B. Wilson, Spencer P. Boyer, and James Lamond discuss how Romney’s record of disappointing was once again on display in his foreign policy speech.
Heather Hurlburt explains why Mitt Romney is no George C. Marshall and no Ronald Reagan.
Tim Padgett looks at the future of opposition parties in Venezuela.
