There is a case to be made for a Republican national security policy, but Mitt Romney has yet to make it.
The Republican candidate for president has struggled to find a hook beyond arguments which have limited appeal beyond his party's base, such as that he is tougher on Iran, a better friend to Israel, a more formidable adversary to Russia and China, and a bigger spender on defense.
His foreign trip did not help, coming across, rightly, as a campaign swing rather than a listen-and-learn, meet-and-greet tour by a prospective commander-in-chief.
The argument that America is less safe under President Obama falls flat beyond the hard core Republican faithful. A recent USA Today/Gallup poll showed that 52 percent of those surveyed think Obama 'would better handle' foreign affairs than Romney, who tallied just 40 percent. Obama gets credit for being the president who, finally, delivered justice to Osama bin Laden. His winding down of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan has broad support. The international coalition against Iran, including unprecedented US, UN, and EU sanctions, led by the Washington, has never been stronger.
The debate over national security, it seems, is more contested within the Romney campaign than among the American electorate, which is preoccupied with the U.S. economic crisis and paying scant attention to international affairs.
Unless Romney changes tack, Obama will win the foreign policy debate without breaking a sweat.
This would be unfortunate, because there is in fact a debate to be had about national security, and Romney has in fact begun that conversation.
In a major foreign policy speech last month, the Republican candidate for president said, "A healthy American economy is what underwrites American power."
Romney should develop and expand on this link between the economy and national security. The U.S. economy is not healthy, so American global leadership suffers. The U.S. national unemployment rate remains at 8.3 percent, a tick worse than when President Obama signed into law the American Recovery & Reinvestment Act, the so-called 'stimulus' bill, in February 2009. The U.S. gross domestic product (GDP) grew by only 1.5 percent in the second quarter of 2012. This is now the longest recovery on record, and one wonders how long it can be accurately called a 'recovery.' The U.S. budget deficit for 2012 is projected at $1.2 trillion. There are as yet no prospects for serious reductions in entitlement spending, which in the coming years will make a bad situation worse. Simply put, a debtor nation cannot lead.
The financial crises in Europe, the result of out of control government spending on social and welfare programs, should be held up as a possible American future. Absent a comprehensive plan for growth, deficit reduction, and cuts in entitlement spending, such as those advocated by the bipartisan Simpson-Bowles Commission, which Obama ignored, and Romney could endorse, the U.S. could face a similar calamity.
There is also an electoral advantage for Romney in linking the economy and national security. In the same poll which gave Obama the edge in managing foreign affairs, Romney bested Obama in being perceived as better handling the deficit, the economy, job creation, and taxes. Romney should rightly make the economy a cross over issue for national security. The economy also blends into energy and trade policies. Romney could usefully promote policies to increase export-driven growth, reduce dependence of foreign oil, and expand the U.S. energy infrastructure, all in the context of U.S. national security and global leadership.
A good template for a reset in a Romney foreign policy is an essay in Foreign Affairs by former Republican Senator Chuck Hagel. Written in 2004, and avoiding both ideological excess and partisan sniping, Hagel's Republican foreign policy stresses the linkages among economics, energy, and national security. For example, his observation, that "Deficits and entitlement programs, if unchecked, will undermine confidence in our economy, impede economic growth and investment, make the United States less competitive, and erode our position as a world economic leader. U.S. policymakers will then be forced to make hard choices between national security and domestic priorities," rings even more true today than it did in 2004.
There is plenty of time for Romney to re-make his case for a Republican alternative to Obama's foreign policy. While he will of course seek to contrast his views with the president on a wide range of issues, Americans will be well-served if Romney can move the national security debate toward the economy, energy and trade. Alternatively, tired conservative platitudes designed primarily for the Republican base will serve neither Romney, nor the country, in November and beyond.
Natalie Pace: Demand for Foreign Oil at Lowest Point in 15 Years
 |
 |
|
| Obama | Romney | |
|---|---|---|
| Electoral Votes (270 to win) |
332 | 206 |
| Obama | Romney | |
|---|---|---|
| Total | 65,899,660 | 60,932,152 |
| Percent | 51.1% | 47.2% |
| Democrats* | Republicans | |
|---|---|---|
| Current Senate | 53 | 47 |
| Seats gained or lost | +2 | -2 |
| New Total | 55 | 45 |
| Democrats | Republicans | |
|---|---|---|
| Seats won | 201 | 234 |
Sounds pretty Right Wing from the Bullshite contained in this article.
Socialism is a VERY good thing. Just ask the big banks that got bailed out with socialized money!
Good advise Andrew Parasiliti. Mitt Romney campaign and his camp followers, are not biting. A president is defined by his depth of perception in internal and external, major affairs. Mitt is getting severe drubbing over his income tax disclosures, his three nation, carefully arranged but poorly managed trip to show off his presidential mettle, his constant escapades into negative ads and his kissing rich Republican donors.
Here is the case. He makes a firm commitment towards being absolutely transparent of his business past. Talks seriously as to how, if elected he would bring back jobs, make dilapidated national infrastructure improve, have a short term as well as long term commitment on similarly neglect education and make tax codes smooth, unbiased and just for the middle class as well as the rich.
He has time but he is wasting it chasing wrong goals. Throwing money, seems to be his sole goal. Can't trust such a man. Rich or poor.
...and I am Sid Harth@webworldismyoyster.com
Of course! Zig zag!
Frankly, Romney doesn't have anything available to prove he'd be better on the economy. Most certainly not his tenure in Massachusetts or at Bain, for sure. And now we find out he's bilking the American government out of tax money - perhaps legally (we dont know) but not patriotically.
As for foreign policy directly: the President has already won that debate. We are safer as a country now than we were 4 years ago. On top of that, he's winding down the wars that are putting a drain on our finances.
And the President might get credit for ending the war in Afghanistan, but Iraq is a different story. Obama followed z Bush agreement that was set up before the former came into office.