What’s
Wrong Today?
The
Wrongologist wrote on Friday about what to expect from the Foreign Policy
debate between Mr. Obama and Mr. Romney. He
said that we would hear about failed leadership by Mr. Obama. That Mr. Romney
would advocate a more muscular foreign policy starting with adding significantly
more military resources. So far, so good. Wrongologist was on track.
So,
What’s Wrong?
The
Wrongologist’s success with prediction ended there. Last night, Mr. Romney walked
away from many of his positions on foreign policy, embracing those of President
Obama.
That
was surprising since Mr. Romney gave a speech at the Virginia Military
Institute (VMI) on October 8th. The
speech was touted as his “major” foreign policy address. The full text of the
speech can be found here.
He outlined several areas of difference between the Romney policies and the
Obama record. Here are a few points from the VMI speech:
- Romney
began by saying the attack in Benghazi demonstrated that “the threats we face have grown so much worse.”
- Later
in the speech, Romney criticized Obama for “missing
an historic opportunity to win new friends who share our values in the Middle
East.”
- Romney
then turned to the topic near and dear to the voters of Florida in particular. “The relationship between the president
of the United States and the prime minister of Israel, our closest ally in the
region, has suffered great strains,” he said, adding that they have “set back the hopes of peace in the
Middle East and emboldened our mutual adversaries.”
- Romney
went on: “In Iraq, the costly gains
made by our troops are being eroded by rising violence.” Then he said, “America’s ability to influence events
for the better in Iraq has been undermined by the abrupt withdrawal of our
entire troop presence,” adding that Obama tried to secure a more
gradual drawdown but “failed.”
- Romney
followed this with his position on Iran. It is worth quoting at some length:
I will put the
leaders of Iran on notice that the United States and our friends and allies
will prevent them from acquiring nuclear weapons capability. I will not
hesitate to impose new sanctions on Iran and will tighten the sanctions we
currently have. I will restore the permanent presence of aircraft carrier task
forces in both the Eastern Mediterranean and the Gulf region—and work with
Israel to increase our military assistance and coordination. For the sake of
peace, we must make clear to Iran through actions, not just words, that their
nuclear pursuit will not be tolerated.
- Romney
then pledged to boost defense spending, saying, “I will roll back President Obama’s deep and arbitrary cuts to our
national defense that would devastate our military.” He also claimed
that the “size of our Navy is at
levels not seen since 1916.”
- Romney
delicately phrased his stand on Syria: “I
will work with our partners to identify and organize those members of
the opposition who share our values and ensure
they obtain the arms
they need to defeat Assad’s tanks, helicopters, and fighter jets.”
- On
Afghanistan, Romney seemed muddled. First, he said, “I will pursue a real and successful transition to Afghan security
forces by the end of 2014.” He denounced Obama’s “politically timed retreat that abandons the Afghan people to the
same extremists who ravaged their country.” But Obama’s policy also
calls for pursuing a transition to the Afghan forces by the end of 2014. In
fact, this is the policy that Afghan President Hamid Karzai supports, even
demands.
Finally,
Romney proclaimed, “The 21st
century can and must be an American century.”
Well, imagine the Wrongologist’s surprise
when throughout last night’s foreign policy debate, Mr. Romney embraced Mr.
Obama’s policies and then closed with a pitch to America about his desire to
bring peace to the world.
Romney’s pivot from the content of the VMI speech
was a political calculation, designed to appeal to undecided women. Romney knows that
he is closing fast in several of the swing states, and he needs the focus to be
Obama’s record on the economy.
So, he
pivots to cover the Obama positions just 14 days after VMI. That is politics.
What
persists is Mitt’s mendacity.
Romney and
his advisers, many of them Bush-Cheney neo-cons, believe that the United States
can wield the same force and influence it did during the Cold War, if only a “strong”
(?) president sits in the White House again. During the debate, Romney covered most
of this up, except for persisting in the thought to expand military
expenditures.
So, for the 2nd time in 3
debates, Romney walked away from his stated positions, shape-shifting into Moderate
Mitt.
Voters who
are undecided need to evaluate Mr. Romney, the shape-shifter. In 2012, people
are longing for a better answer; just like in 2008 when Mr. Obama was selling
the concept of different was better than more of the same.
But voters
need to focus on the question as well as the answer.
The
question for today is: Which Romney is the real Romney?
Just
asking the question should tell voters that Romney can’t be the answer
.
