-
Best Defense
Robots: Killing Our Warrior Spirit?
-
The Cable
Whistleblower: I'm Being Bullied By State Dept.
-
Passport
Syria: Is It the Sunnis' or Shiites' Fault?
Posted By David Rothkopf
Monday, November 14, 2011 - 2:57 PM
Share
Watching this weekend's Republican presidential debate on U.S. foreign policy, you might be forgiven if you thought it shed absolutely no light on U.S. foreign policy. After all, by definition ... and by God's good graces ... the views expressed represented those of people who will have precious little influence over America's international course. Only one of these people can be the Republican nominee. And, in part thanks to performances like what we saw on Saturday, even that individual is very likely not going to ever be president of the United States.
As a consequence the vapidity of Herman Cain is irrelevant. The pro-torture stance of the wing-nuts in the group is irrelevant. The ridiculous zero-based foreign aid formula suggested by Rick Perry is irrelevant. Even the pontificating of Republican non-Romney of the Month, Newt Gingrich is irrelevant. Because these weren't foreign policy ideas or positions. They were desperate cries for attention.
Sadly, also irrelevant will be thoughtful views offered by Jon Huntsman, who clearly distinguished himself as the most capable, thoughtful, experienced, and credible of the crew.
This means that the 30 minutes of the debate that CBS chose not to air will have a virtually identical impact to the 60 minutes of Obama-bashing, fear-mongering, and peacocking that actually were broadcast.
It is possible that some of the views that were offered by likely nominee Mitt Romney could be consequential. This would not seem to be good for U.S.-China relations except that there is virtually zero possibility that President Mitt Romney -- who would essentially be the hand-picked candidate of the business community and the major party presidential candidate with the closest ties to America's economic establishment in modern memory -- would actually follow through on his anti-Beijing saber-rattling once in office. Further, some of his statements were essentially meaningless to begin with -- like his assertion that a vote for him was the only way to avert Iran getting the bomb, not being backed by facts or even being remotely credible given how key what happens between now and when the next president takes office will be.
But more important still is that Romney isn't going to be the next President either. In all likelihood that will be Barack Obama. Here are 10 reasons why:
-
Obama is the incumbent. That matters. And he has become increasingly confident in using the bully pulpit to his advantage, at appearing presidential. The crucial issue is going to be economics.
-
Despite Europe's economic mess, a number of other factors suggest that the U.S. economy may begin to tick upward more during the next year. Other parts of the world are likely to be growing from the emerging markets to, in a modest way, Japan. More importantly, the likelihood that the U.S. unemployment rate declines the better part of a point to something closer to 8 percent is pretty good. That ought to be enough to make the case he avoided the abyss and turned things around in much the same way that Ronald Reagan did in 1984.
-
Like Reagan, Obama is liked and seen as trying hard to do the right thing. That, plus some signs of progress goes a long way with the American people.
-
Furthermore, none of these candidates are a Ronald Reagan. Moreover, none of them are even a George W. Bush, which is saying something. Mitt Romney is the whitest white man in America. He will look more like the establishment than Obama in an anti-establishment year. He will not get any journalistic good bounces because frankly it is hard to spin a narrative about the guy that will grab anyone's heartstrings. Want evidence, look at how desperately half the Republican party is at looking for alternatives.
-
That search for alternatives could lead to a third party candidate. If it's Ron Paul it will eat into Romney's base. It is highly unlikely the left will pose a similar challenge to Obama. As for the possibility of a centrist third party candidate, appealing as it may be, it will be less so to many if it appears that candidate can't win and will only increase the likelihood that Mitt Romney will be elected on the U.S. Chamber of Commerce ticket.
-
While external events in the world -- like the Iranian detonation of a nuclear device or a terror attack -- could hurt Obama, in all likelihood, given his growing comfort with foreign-policy and the tendency of the American people to rally around the president in times of crisis, it would be a mistake to count on such a development being more likely to help the Republican candidate.
-
The reality is that while foreign policy won't be central to the election, Obama has already succeeded in doing something remarkable: Taking it off the table. He is hard to criticize given his record with bin Laden, Al Awlaki, Qaddafi, meeting his promise in Iraq, starting to get out of Afghanistan, and restoring America's international reputation.
-
We haven't gotten to the one-on-one segment of the campaign yet. Whoever is the Republican candidate has to run against the very disciplined, intelligent, well-prepared, charismatic president. Which of those folks you saw Saturday night can hold their own versus Obama?
-
The Republican Party on the Hill, via the Tea Party and via its more extreme elements has adopted a bunch of policies that are astonishingly out of touch with the moment. They should be doing great given the economic problems. But they are not only seen as obstructionist on the Hill but they are seen as advocates of millionaires they don't want taxed and opposed to fairness in sharing the burden for the sacrifices fixing the economy will require.
-
By extension the leading voices for the Republican Party are folks like those on the stage ... and John Boehner and Eric Cantor and Mitch McConnell. Really? That's going to grab America in the current environment?
The electoral map says it will be close. But already Republican overreaching has pushed Ohio back toward Obama. The Republican hope re: Florida, Marco Rubio has suffered some self-inflicted wounds. Virginia gets bluer by the day. It's close ... but it's trending toward the President.
And so, while making predictions a year out is a sucker's game, for those of you who watched the Saturday debate and were disheartened there is at least all the above to suggest that none of it mattered that much anyway. As of right now the favorite to be the next president of the U.S. has to be the current president of the U.S.
Alex Wong/Getty Images
You're really grasping at straws here (i.e, the recent elections show Virgiinia is anything but trending blue)....
I hope the economy gets better, but most data points to 2012 being at best another muddle-through year.
And Obama's no Reagan.
One thing's for sure: since Obama can't run on his record, this election is going to be the nastiest in recent memory.
"Obama can't run on his record"
-Our 2 wars are being slowly phased out
-Osama Bin Laden is still dead
-The Obamacare Bill passed (even if it was compromised to hell)
The problem with the GOP right now is they are falling over backwards to court votes who are already in their corner. So why bother kissing their behinds? The religious right and prags of the rich are not going to vote Democrat anytime soon. But the current GOP platform is designed solely for their benefit only. There is nothing which has appeal to the swing voters.
The only reason Rommey is a front runner is by default. The rest of the pack is either borderline retarded or uninspiring.
I hope he does try to run on his record.....
OBL is dead. This president all almost nothing to do with it, except for saying yes, go kill him. Obamacare? Sure, 70% of Americans now see it for what it is. A scam in the biggest sense. If you think this is a positive, I think you are greatly mistaken. The wars drawing down, is again something that was going to happen anyway. The fact that he couldn't negotiate a way to keep troops there like he wanted too, yet another failure.
As Blue was implying, his record is so bad: $15 Trillion in debt, Obamacare a joke, Islamist radical appeasing, etc, etc, etc, This will truly be the nastiest, name calling, attacking, dirty campaign this country has seen. And it started with OWS imo. They are perpetuated, backed and apparently being taught by Obama's lacky's like Van Jones and Bill Ayers. It will be ugly!
Ron Paul for president. All the rest serve corporate interests.
Are you suggesting that Ron Paul, Mr. Abolish-the-federal-government, wouldn't do a whole bunch of things (such as dismantling the entire regulatory framework, the vast majority of which benefits the average, non-corporate citizenry greatly [which so happen to be most Americans]) which would be in the interests of large corporations? Entities which incidentally happen to be the strongest backers of such anti-government "movements" such as the tea party, the libertarian fringe, etc. AR, you seem to operate in a world in which logical consistency is relegated to the realm of the useless.
LOL...
Obama's foreign policy is weak. I've explained it a thousand times...so have others...its all slight of hand with the media complicit in trying to sell it.....nothing of real note or of real geopolitical influence has been done. If anything, he's made america look weaker and LESS likely to act on the big issue like iran. drones are easy from las vegas...sending in seals is somewhat easy...stopping iran from nukes is not easy. Its WHY obama's mindnumbingly stupid underlings created the RESET BUTTON with russia so they could SELL it to the unwitting general public...but the RESET BUTTON hasn't gotten russia to help on iran in any meaningful way....but obama sure gave up support of his allies in poland and the czech republic ostensibly to help him with iran...they used obama's naivetee. So has china for that matter. His treatment of israel has been nothing short of disgraceful. Leading from behind in libya was another in a long series of PR moves....had he led from the front with france and the UK and done so immediately when the no fly zone was being considered, many more libyans would be alive today, which was the supposed reason in the first place..to save people. All in all, I think his FP is paper thin. Remember, there was the fort hood terrorist, the bomber on the detroit flight that actuually got through the net, there was the time square bomber that got through....I would say that obama has in fact been lucky!
As for the economy...I dont see it really turning around so fast...oh sure...they'll fudge the numbers....but real growth isn't in the offing so long as obama makes decisions like the XL pipeline disaster. No matter what you say, he wants to redistribute wealth, which disincentivizes people on all sides of the equation. Europe is a mess and not getting truly healthy any time soon. Factor in a war coming in the ME and the economy wont be his friend. I think he's a one term president.
I just had one thing to comment on from your post and that is if President Obama is making the US "look weaker and LESS likely to act" it is because we ARE weaker and less CAPABLE of acting on issues. A decade of mismanaged war has seen us expend just about all the blood, treasure and international credibility we might have to use on issues "like Iran" and because of this we need to be more aware than ever of our limitations. Personally I find it refreshing to have a POTUS that realizes this.
Most of the rest of what you said was non-sensical, bitter sounding gibberish and not worth a response but I certainly hope it provided you with some catharsis to get it all out.
oh varangian, dont be so partisan
blood and treasure? its called an army...thats what they do. soldiers die. protecting you. besides, how many died in iraq over 10 yrs versus in WW2 over 6 yrs? Please, stop with this blood and treasure democrat talking point. Iraq started well, then turned ugly with the insurgents, then with the surge was a decided winner...saddam gone, elections held, fair representation. democracy. only recently has the violence flared again under obama's wishy washy exit plan, which is more abot votes for him and less about regional stability in the ME. As for afghanistan, obama didnt want to be there, even though he called it the good war, and so at the same time he announced a REDUCED surge, he announces their exit date, and NOW, he's moving that exit date up all the while they conduct secret talks with the TALIBAN!!!!! AMAZING....
As for your not being able resource wise to take down iran's nuke program, a) it was obama's pledge in 08, and b) if they remove troops from germany, and korea, and japan and the UK etc,...etc...and rotate them to other theatres of conflict, then for sure you have the resources. Aloowing iran to go nuclear will be a HUUUUUGE mistake when it could have been prevented. The world will be quite different when iran has nukes and the rest of the ME enters into a huge arms race. Obama's stupid contrived "reset button" with russia was supposed to bring russia onside for just such issues..all obama did was give up missile shields in ally's poland and czech republic, for which they hate him now, and in return russia got him to reduce nukes from what? 2500 to 1600? wow!!!! like that really helps...give me a break....
his FP is all smoke and mirrors...just like his whole domestic agenda...all PR no substance.
For what it's worth, Obama has had his share of dimwitted political babble. Off the top of my head I know that we have fewer than 57 states in this country and that just filling our car tires properly along with giving our engines regular tune-ups is no fix for our oil dependency. More examples can be listed by others but would be equally dull, pointless, and contemptuous as the one made by David Rothkopf on GOP candidates.
Face it, we can't pretend that we elect deep, sharp-witted men to be the presidency (or any office for that matter) in any party (GOP or Democrat) nor should we expect otherwise.
The only reason Obama can win is because there is no credible opposition. Last time he won because of empty promises and being slightly better than McCain. This time he may win because of those very same empty promises and being slightly better than that freak-show the GOP is coming up with as electoral candidates. Nevermind that he is a failure as president, being run against such an incompetent opposition could even get a brick elected.
Of and his campaign funds, corporate sponsors, big-money buddies are plentiful, he acted on their behalf for 3 years.
It is pretty clear all the GOP candidates are retarded or suffering from some sort of mental disorders. Obama is going to win. no questions asked. Its not even a competition lol. Even Sarah Palin would've had a better chance at the president, atleast she would've been funnier than Herman Cain or Rick Perry.
Most of my family tilts left, and they inexplicably put Bill Clinton on a pedestal. They always express their frustration with Obama - "Clinton could always explain things so clearly. Obama can't compare." I would point out that Clinton was campaigning 100% of the time, whereas Obama has decided that he draws a distinction between governing and campaigning. His governing can often frustrate his supporters (myself included), such as all the compromises on the health care bill and this past summer's debt ceiling nonsense. But I can respect Obama's decision to draw a clear split between these 2 activities, which is why you do not hear about charging guests for coffee and stays in the Lincoln Bedroom, and selling of presidential pardons for tax evaders.
Also, for all the revisionist history about Clinton - he never got more than 50% of the popular vote in 1992 or 1996. The number of Democrats in Congress in 2000 was less than in 1992. There were fewer Democratic governors and state legislative bodies in 2000 than in 1992. So becoming more like Bill Clinton will not necessarily win Obama re-election.
As for Romney - much depends on which Romney will run. Will it be the Romney that enacted health care reform, or the one that ran away from his achievement? Will it be the Romney that wants to rebuild and strengthen our military, or the one that wants to get it bogged down in another war in the Middle East? Is it the Romney that wants to get tough with China, or the Romney of the private sector, who consulted companies on how to move their operations to China? Figuring that out may be Obama's biggest challenge.
I think everyone's a bit certified crazy at this point
I remember learning in AP American History how our government is actually designed for gridlock. It was set up so that no one person could impose their views without a big fight. But today it's so brutal.
I think Obama's problem is that he is naive; he believes the Republicans are reasonable, when it fact they have a very specific vendetta. But the bunch of goofs they've sent up to run against him is ridiculous. Obama unites, these guys divide. Obama has a broad appeal: blacks and whites, Asians Latinos, all across the board.
I wonder why the Republicans haven't sent some of their more experienced hatchet men from Congress in there. These guys are lean and mean and know how to go for the throat.
The problem is that the despicable corruption that goes on in Congress is done behind the scenes and not in public. But some of their lawyers and lobbyists are smart and could probably be more effective in attacking Obama than this group up there. Rick Perry can't even put a sentence together, this is really a blow to every American who once believed that growing up to be president is a noble thing.
Obama is a great speaker, he's smart, and tries to work with people. Gingrich gets angry and arrogant, Perry forgets things, Romney is too stiff (Al Gore like), Santorum and Bachman say these crazy things, Ron Paul makes sense but he's in the wrong party.
The Republicans just don't even know how to present themselves. I think they should all learn how to be in front of a crowd and speak without looking so stiff and phony. I mean you could take an infomercial host for some kind of abs workout and throw them up in front of a crowd, give them some talking points and they would have more charisma than these guys. But I think they don't have any new ideas anyways, they just want to serve private corporate interests and hate on anything Obama has done, even if it was good. Did you see how the Republicans could barely even acknowledge Obama's role in killing Bin Laden? They are the ultimate sore sports.
And it's funny how it's switched, I feel like the tables have turned from past elections (minus Clinton, who was the last great democratic orator)
You're right Rothkopf, incumbency matters. Unfortunately for Obama, and clearly yourself, being the incumbent with unemployment upwards of 9% (when he promised it below 7% at this point should Congress pass his "stimulus" plan) is a political death sentence. Believe me, that chart he and his clown car of economic advisers produced back in the spring of 2009 will come back to bite him, hard.
It takes a lot of wishful thinking to believe the economy will turn around in the next year, given most global indicators (EU troubles, Chinese bubble burst, lack of American consumer confidence) suggest it is headed for stagnation at best, and shock and double dip as the most likely outcome.
You're right, foreign policy will be a non-issue barring an unforseen crisis, but it won't matter. The economy is piss-poor, and Americans are more and more attributing Obama as a party responsible for their economic woes. Sorry Rothkopf, your boy doesn't have a prayer.
Obama coudn't have kept his job in corporate america
If Obama worked for any Fortune 500 even at the Director Level, that I doubt he would be able to acomplish, he would have been fired long time ago.
Lets see, he takes three months to take a decision or support a point of view.
Incapable to negociate, or bring consensus. No leadership at all, not even with in is own party at Congress and Senate
Acomplishments, he can pass any legislation he wants, but in the end, everybody measures at the output. Despite what Obama may think , the american people is not stupid and they are begining to see, this man is all talk and no action
As far as Foreing Policy, I didn't think any other President after Carter, would do so much damage to American Foregeing Policy, but here we are.
The islamic brotherhood, appears to be progressing towards controling Egipt and in Lybia we don't know if we have created another Lebanon.
Subjective arguments, but I get the point, I guess you are saying that all the Republican Pre Candidates are even worse than Obama.
Now i feel hopeless
I think Obama's problem is that he is naive; he believes the Republicans are reasonable, when it fact they have a very specific vendetta. But the bunch of goofs they've sent up to run against him is ridiculous. Obama unites, these guys divide. Obama Greg Tims has a broad appeal: blacks and whites, Asians Latinos, all across the board.
David Rothkopf is the CEO and Editor-at-Large of Foreign Policy. His new book, "Power, Inc.: The Epic Rivalry Between Big Business and Government and the Reckoning that Lies Ahead" is due out from Farrar, Straus & Giroux on March 1.
Read More
May/June 2013
-
Profile
-
FP Power Map
-
Think Again
Follow us on Twitter | Visit us on Facebook | Follow us on RSS | Subscribe to Foreign Policy
About FP | Meet the Staff | Foreign Editions | Reprint Permissions | Advertising | Writers’ Guidelines | Press Room | Work at FP
Services:Subscription Services | Academic Program | FP Archive | Reprint Permissions | FP Reports and Merchandise | Special Reports | Buy Back Issues
Privacy Policy | Disclaimer | Contact Us
11 DUPONT CIRCLE NW, SUITE 600 | WASHINGTON, DC 20036 | Phone: 202-728-7300 | Fax: 202-728-7342
FOREIGN POLICY is published by the FP Group, a division of The Washington Post Company
All contents ©2013 The Foreign Policy Group, LLC. All rights reserved.
(20)
HIDE COMMENTS LOGIN OR REGISTER REPORT ABUSE