On China, on Iran and on aid to Israel, Mitt Romney, Herman Cain and Rick Perry compete with each other in simplicity and ignorance.
Can an America weakened by the economic crisis manage in a complex world with simple ideas and simplistic views? Listening to the Republican presidential candidates, voters might think so. For several days, Mitt Romney, Herman Cain, Rick Perry and others have increased their thunderously loud declarations and shortcuts on foreign policy matters, traditionally a Republican strong point. On China, on Iran, on aid to Israel, catchy phrases — often not backed up — have burst forth.
Mitt Romney, the best placed in the race for the nomination of the Grand Old Party threatened to drag the Chinese before the WTO and to interrogate them for being currency manipulators, a growing theme in an America exasperated by the migration of entire sections of its industry to Asia. It’s just too bad if this sets off a trade war, he said. Jon Huntsman, Obama’s ex-ambassador to China and the only candidate to have a sophisticated foreign policy vision, nearly choked, face-to-face with an attitude that “panders” to emotions. He called for muscular but constructive dialogue with Beijing (Obama’s current position). But Huntsman, who is stagnating at the bottom of the polls, remains inaudible.
Like Reagan
Similarly, Romney promised military strikes on Iran if sanctions fail to stop its nuclear program. “[I]f we re-elect Barack Obama, Iran will have a nuclear weapon… if you elect me as the next president, they will not have a nuclear weapon,” he boasted. He also promised to increase military aid to Israel, and accused Obama of failing to carry out his obligations to this partner.
The entrepreneur Herman Cain, the second-placed candidate, revealed an embarrassing ignorance of the issues. Recently, he called for countering the Chinese military threat because Beijing is “trying to develop nuclear capability,” apparently ignorant of the fact that China has had atomic military power since 1964! Texan Gov. Rick Perry, who supports Israel and wants strikes against Iran, said he was ready to engage the U.S. Army in Mexico against drug cartels. The use of torture against suspected terrorists, banned by Obama in 2009, has been advocated by Cain, Perry and Michele Bachmann. We are far from 2008 Republican candidate John McCain, a heavyweight in foreign policy.
The adversaries of the current president have countered that Reagan also had simple ideas but won the Cold War. They have pointed out that Obama himself was an amateur and has had to water down his wine [by making concessions] on counterterrorism matters. They insist (with reason) on the failure of his naïve negotiations with Iran, of the precipitous departure of the “boys” from Iraq and of dilly-dallying in Libya, labeling him weak.
But the attack is not so easy. The public has a rather positive assessment of Obama’s national security [policy], which has eliminated bin Laden. Since Iraq, the public has been distrustful of military interventions that lead to stalemates. And by arguing that we need to reconstruct America economically to revive its leadership, Obama hits closer to the mark.
I disagree that Huntsman is the only candidate with a sophisticated foreign policy. Ron Paul makes more sense than Huntsman. Paul is for ending the American empire not only because it is bankrupting the U.S, but because many of its facets have been accomplished contrary to U.S. law. He is the only candidate who talks about blowback and the consequences to the civilian populations in places where America flexes it muscle. But further, and more importantly, he has been saying these things throughout his political career. There is therefore much less chance of him lying in campaigns or selling out his principles after he’s been elected like has been done by so many others, including Obama.