Obama’s Overconfidence Harmed Him

Everyone in America is still puzzled (to put it mildly) by what spirits possessed Barack Obama and Mitt Romney during the recent election debate in Denver and made the Democratic president and his Republican opponent become so unlike themselves.

In my opinion, it was only one spirit, and it really possessed Romney and left Obama. It is the spirit of a perceived need, which, as is well known, has at least since the time of Spinoza and Hegel been synonymous with the freedom that Americans revere.

That spirit possessed Romney because Romney had nowhere to retreat. Everyone around him, and most likely even he himself, realized that either he will reverse the course of the competition, or everyone will completely give up on him. So he inwardly let go and shined, as sometimes happens with athletes within seconds of defeat.

It seems that Obama, on the other hand, had decided that there is no reason for him to try too hard. He did not see a need for such effort. Because, supposedly, the campaign is going well, and the opponent himself is surrendering without a fight. And from this higher position the debate can be half-hearted and seemingly reluctant, because all the arguments are known in advance like a worn-out record.

As might be expected, the president’s confidence harmed him. Actually, even before the debate it was clear from the outside that Obama had developed the former Soviet general secretaries’ disease: the belief in the magic of his own words, the inner conviction that the surrounding reality must adapt to him, and not vice versa. As a result, now he has to puzzle over how to get back the initiative that was intercepted by his rival.

Polls of voters conducted after the debate showed that in the overall country, and in the key states, Romney has practically caught up to Obama, if not surpassed him. According to a Pew poll, the pendulum of public sympathy has swung toward the Republican candidate a full 12 percent and put him in the lead.

Of course, now the pendulum will most likely swing back. Of course, the chances of the incumbent president’s victory in November still look good. Of course, a sudden reminder of the fact that he might lose has discouraged some of his current and potential supporters, but will only spur many others to more actively participate in the campaign.

Yet the fact remains that the current president, an obvious favorite and the race leader, was suddenly forced to adjust to his opponent’s actions.

In my opinion, the entire country is now in a similar situation. Perhaps for the first time in its recent history, the U.S. is facing a real — though perhaps still subconscious — need to take the arguments and actions of others into account. Prior to that, beginning at least with the collapse of the Soviet Union and the end of the Cold War, the U.S. said that it recognized such need, but in reality did as it pleased.

Then a crisis broke out, and not just anywhere, but on Wall Street. And it nearly brought down the U.S. (along with the global) economy. Now, in America and around the world, there is no greater challenge than to get out of the rut leading to an economic precipice. And in Denver, Obama and Romney essentially argued only about which one of them would be best entrusted behind the wheel.

Meanwhile, they pretended as though once the driver is selected, the country will once again have a smooth economic highway spread out in front of it. But this too is self-deception. For America, the path to reaching that highway right now is, as the Russian proverb says, seven versts* to heaven and all the way through the forest. Unemployment, debt, taxes, Social Security, and Medicare — there’s a problem anywhere you look.

It’s well known that foreign policy is a continuation of the domestic policy. America does not have, and is not expected to have, enough money to continue ruling the world without considering others. This means that it will have to share the financial burden with others. But in this case, it’s necessary to really consider their interests.

Does America realize this need? So far, it’s not certain. Romney outright proclaims that he will not retreat from the idea of “American exceptionalism” in world affairs. Moreover, he constantly rhetorically trashes Obama for supposedly rejecting this principle.

The other day, the Republican spoke at Virginia Military Institute with a foreign policy speech “The Mantle of Leadership,” which argued: “The 21st century can and must be an American century.” Romney acknowledged, “I know many Americans are asking whether our country today, with our ailing economy and our massive debt and after eleven years at war, is still capable of leading.” However, he stated, “I believe that if America doesn’t lead, others will — others who don’t share our interests and our values.”

Accordingly, he said that if he is elected, U.S. military spending will not be reduced. Instead, he promised to launch new programs, including enhancing the U.S. Navy and “implement[ing] effective missile defenses to protect against threats.” Romney emphasized that Moscow should expect “no flexibility” regarding the latter issue.

As we known, the Russian president recently thanked the militant Republican publicly for the frankness of his anti-Russian rhetoric. The Kremlin believes that it “again confirmed the correctness of our position on missile defense problems,” thereby “bolster[ing] our positions in negotiations” in the eyes of the international community.

Perfectly put: the form is beyond reproach and the substance hits the nail on the head. But by the way, from a historical perspective, Romney and those like him may indeed be the best allies for Russian statesmen.

American neoconservatives’ motto is frank, adopted into a fundamental principle, individual and national egoism a la Ayn Rand. Everyone else in the last few years is constantly whining: one must act fairly in world affairs, based on common interests. In other words, it’s necessary to share.

But at the same time, Russia has a huge territory and natural resources with a minimum population. And tomorrow they’ll say: if you’re not sharing oil, then share the drinking water. After all, everyone wants a drink.

Whereas Mitt Romney’s America (and the America of others like him) is the only one that on principle, based on its ideological and even moral reasons, stated: resources cannot and should not be forcibly socialized. They have owners, who are not required to take into consideration what the poor want. So, hands off. The right to property is sacred and inviolable.

On the other hand, according to the canons of the free market, ownership can be redistributed among the owners, including by hostile takeovers, mergers, and acquisitions. This approach is also easily projected not only to domestic but to international markets. Therefore, all of the owners’ rights and interests must be protected.

Editor’s Note: a verst is a Russian measure of length, equivalent to approximately 0.66 of one mile.