Is President Obama missing a major reelection opportunity by neglecting to highlight his widely acclaimed successes on foreign policy?
Currently, Obama is hammering away at Mitt Romney's dismal job creation record as a former Massachusetts governor (2002-2006) and a co-founder of Bain Capital. While some top Democrats aren't happy with the tenor of Obama's Bain attacks, they appear to be swaying swing voters in some of the critical battleground states that Romney must win if he expects to prevail in November.
But the gains from these attacks could well prove short-lived. That's because Obama's own job performance is increasingly being challenged by a string of monthly job reports that have led most experts to conclude that the economic recovery has stalled. Last month's dismal jobs report sent shock waves through Wall Street. The latest jobs report, out today, on the heels of news that manufacturing has slowed for the first time since 2009, is likely to do the same.
In fact, outside the swing states, polls show that independent voters tend to trust Romney more than they do Obama when it comes to managing the economy. And yet voters in these polls say that they trust Obama far more than Romney -- by nearly 20 points -- as the nation's commander in chief. It's time for Obama to exploit this clear advantage.
Focusing on foreign policy isn't just about touting a single success, however. When Obama tried that gambit in late April -- on the anniversary of the U.S. raid that killed Osama Bin-Laden -- it backfired. Criticism that the president was hogging the glory, and even insulting the memory of the U.S. Navy SEALS who conducted the raid stung the administration badly, and the president quickly backed off. But rather than retreat altogether, Obama needs to broaden his approach and fully incorporate foreign policy into his strategy for reelection.
By any reasonable standard, Obama's first-term foreign policy record is nothing short of astounding. On issue after issue, Obama has shown a steady -- indeed, steely -- resolve that has earned him major kudos from foreign policy specialists in both parties. Consider, for example, the following:
Some of Obama's strongest foreign policy critics, in fact, aren't on the right but on the left, which is disappointed that Obama hasn't closed the base at Guantanamo, has eagerly embraced "drone" warfare, and has denied more Freedom of Information Act requests than his predecessor. But such criticism -- while justified in some areas -- is short-sighted overall. Obama has initiated some seismic shifts in national security doctrine that have a real chance of reducing the prospect of global war. Most notably:
What does Romney have to offer, by contrast? A return to Bush-era neo-conservativism managed by the same people who brought us the Iraq war, and who see any retreat from American unilateralism as a sign of military weakness. They include former Bush State department officials Eliot Cohen and John Bolton, who've been pushing Romney to attack Obama for abandoning Israel and for crippling America's nuclear and conventional war capabilities. They're also suggesting that Obama is weakening the United States in the face of threats from Iran and failing to intervene decisively to bring down the regime in Syria.
Fortunately, much of the foreign policy establishment, including Republicans like former Secretary of State James Baker, aren't biting. In fact, there's even growing concern over Romney's call for a huge increase in U.S. defense spending over and above what the Pentagon under Obama is seeking. Romney's spending hike would cost the Treasury an additional $2.1 trillion, undermining the GOP's ostensible commitment to deficit-reduction, without necessarily enhancing U.S. defense capabilities.
How much does foreign policy matter? In the end, in a close race, it could matter a lot. One foreign policy expert, Bruce Jentleson, has noted that 8-10 percent or more of U.S. voters consistently say that foreign policy drives their vote. And the fact is, even those voters who say they're mostly concerned about their "pocketbook" still form powerful impressions about candidates and their leadership abilities based on more than their records as economic "stewards." These days, most voters know that America lives in a global world and that domestic and foreign policy are related, even if they're not always sure how. It's really up to the president to show how his handling of the trade deficit, increases in defense spending, or the threat of war can directly affect whether the economy grows or stagnates.
Some Obama successes, like his adroit handling of China, are inextricably tied to future jobs growth, in part through the recapturing of American jobs via "in-sourcing," It makes no sense not to make this connection more explicit. Other foreign policy accomplishments could help the president with specific voter groups, including disillusioned youth and veterans, both of whom are showing strong signs of defection. Obama's nuclear and conventional force reductions, for example, could galvanize his peace supporters but, as long-term deficit-busting measures, could appeal more widely, too.
In short, Obama seems to have a real opening on foreign and defense policy, which is something of a rarity for a Democratic presidential candidate. But he needs to seize this advantage now, before Karl Rove & Co. begin launching the kind of national security attack campaign that helped derail John Kerry's bid for the White House in 2004. Developing a broader reelection narrative will allow voters to appreciate just how much is at stake in the election this November. It will also sharply contrast the two candidates' leadership abilities and their fundamentally different visions for how America should confront the deeply intertwined global and domestic challenges of the 21st century.
Jeffrey Laurenti: Fluff and Fact on Obama's 'Global Leadership'
David Boaz: Obama's Accomplishments
Simon Rosenberg: A Stronger Obama Emerges From a Few Consequential Weeks
Daniel Baylis: The Future of Business is a Mix of Capitalism and Loving Thy Neighbour
 |
 |
|
| 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 |
Voters give Obama a double-digit advantage over Romney as commander in chief, but Romney is leading Obama by a whopping 24 points (58-34) among military voters and veterans, according to Gallup.
Military vote is critical in Florida, North Carolina and Virginia.
On a second thought, maybe on his domestic economic accomplishments and the Green industry successes he funded with our tax money….
Or maybe for enlarging the voter base of the Dems to include all the undocumented residents that need NOT to show photo ID…..LMAO
The Solyndra fiasco is a bit of a red herring. A handful of projects failed out of an enormous budget for green technology projects. if you read all the expert reports, and these are not partisan, they will tell you that the attention to Solyndra is way of out of proportion to its impact. A failure rate was built into the larger budget for these kinds of projects and Democrats and Republicans approved this budget. The failure rate is way below what was expected. Any time you are out on the edge of technology development, you will have failures. The main problem with Solyndra wasn't the technology, it was creating a cheap enough product containing the technology ot compete with the Chinese.
I haven't seen a good study of how many undocumented end up voting, but it would probably be due more to false IDS, more than the lack of IDs. You do need a voter registration card, as a rule. I am not aware of places where this requirement has been waived en masse.
In ancient, primitive times perhaps when there were only merchants. The rise of the nation-state went hand in hand with the rise of global business, no? Again, government is major facilitating factor - or an inhibiting one.
The wars we have ongoing are winding down at least enough that the public cannot be worked up about them-- except those few who oppose whatever is ongoing in Afghanistan, and those who can get worked up about drone strikes wherever Obama happens to decide they ought to happen-- who oppose Obama's policies and doings.
Likewise turning our strategic attentions toward China-- nobody here is excited by our newest focus enough to vote to expand it, and those few who do get excited oppose it.
The Libyan miracle has yet to resolve into anything definable, but if anything, fear is greater that we have, by supporting rebels we don't know to oppose dictators we certainly do, naively bungled our way into more Islamist political success throughout the region, none of which is thought to accrue to our benefit-- by those few folks outside DC who can bestir themselves to consider the subject. In other words, it's not a vote-getter.
Whatever Obama's literal policy is re Israel, he is demonized relentlessly by AIPAC and Likidniks to the point that few here are aware of the literal policy. And those who care most, besides Jews themselves (who will mostly vote for Obama) on this subject, tend to be evangelicals-- Obama gets none of those votes.
In short: bad idea, this focus.
As I said below, the headline is misleading. It's not about running on foreign policy alone. It's about recasting the re-election narrative so that the full array of challenges that Obama has addressed successfully - and that Romney by comparison - can't - is fullv highlighted.
Obama has a 20-point lead over Romney on the question of commander in chief and he needs a way to exploit that, if only by portraying Romney as negatively as possible on these same issues.
You mentioned Israel. Obama is down to 61% support among American Jews. It was 74% when he took office. Yes, he needs to get those numbers up.
You can LOSE on foreign policy - just ask Jimmy Carter - if you let your adversaries define you.. Also, when Reagan ran for re-election in 19894, he did not just portray himself as a jobs president.
Unemployment had only fallen from 8.0 to 7.2 % during the final year of his first term, comparable to what it has dropped under Obama.
Lot of myths here
But you stopped short of crowing about Libya and the Arab Spring didn't you? And agreed that the Israel question has cost him among Jews (who I mentioned would still mostly support him), and neglected to say anything in relation to the greatest number of people here interested in it: evangelicals, who will not.
"Polls show that people support a retrained policy toward China,not an aggressive "get tough" one." The actual Obama administration policy is to retrain our military focus on China, so as to constrain any notion of expanding influence in its neighborhood and even beyond. People responding in the hypothetical prefer a non- "get tough" approach. Doesn't mean our actual approach isn't such a one, does it?
Romney will win or lose on people's perception of him as a man who can reinvigorate the economy or not. His foreign policy chops will not matter if he has convinced the electorate he can turn the economy around. Neither will Obama's, if he cannot convince the electorate he can.
The total number of working adults in this country plunged from 68.4% to less then 63.3%... Just a small fact that provides a better picture of our dismal economy and weak prospects.
Nobama knows that he has nothing to show for his years in the white house, therefore like Bush in 2004 he attacks Romney and uses a ‘Swift Boat tactic’ named Bain….hehehe
Years ago FDR once received leaders of the Black movement at the White House and they complained that he wasn't doing enough. He told them: you have to build a stronger movement and force me do it. Hed was trying to tell them how politics gets done.
Latino activists forced Obama to pass this executive order halting the deportations. The trigger was
Sad that his is all you've got. Can you point to anything positive about Obama, or is it all about Romney? And do you realize how pathetic that is for an incumbant?
I'm sure you don't.
Not even close.
Bush senior Initiated The Gulf War and ran away... His son did the same.
President Obama cleaned up BOTH Bush's messes.
Give me a break.