By Ronald Austin
It is said that during his exile and imprisonment one of Napoleon’s interlocutors mentioned the word “Moscow”, whereupon the famous Frenchman leapt to his feet and proclaimed “My whole destiny is in that word.”
Indeed it was. For it was in the vastness of Russia that Napoleon finally overreached himself and laid the conditions for the destruction of his Empire. Mitt Romney does not rule an Empire. But I am sure that if he loses the 2012 elections he might in similar fashion rue Boca Raton as much as Napoleon did Moscow. Two events have occurred in this small town in Florida, which might have an important bearing on his political future.
On May 17 at the home of Marc Leder, the controversial private equity manager, in this very same Floridian town, Romney delivered remarks, which showed that he did not have a high opinion of, or faith in, a significant section of the American electorate. Believing that he was in a secure and confidential environment, he claimed that 47 per cent of the country was so dependent on the government that they were automatically supporters of President Obama. He concluded that it was not his job “to worry about those people”.
When a video of this meeting was leaked by the “Mother Jones” media outlet, the cynicism of Romney’s remarks and his put down of the less fortunate was too much for the American people to stomach. It caused such a political furore that Romney soon reversed himself and embraced the “100 per cent” of the American electorate. It was a perilous and dangerous moment for him in the campaign. It seemed that defeat might visit his ambition to occupy the White House. Then the disaster of Denver occurred and he regained his political footing by a brilliant, if not flawed performance. He did not disgrace himself in the second debate. Romney, as a consequence, surged in the polls.
This was the setting for the final debate on foreign policy between Governor Romney and President Obama. Both men are tied in the polls, with the President having a slight lead in some of the ‘battleground’ states. The question was whether Romney would press home his advantage by attacking aspects of Obama’s foreign policy, especially over developments in Libya. The experts said that Obama had to assert himself as Commander-in-Chief and stop the “bleeding” in the polls. What happened in Florida on October 22, is now the stuff of American political legend. In a comparatively tame debate, both candidates sought to outline their views on America’s place in the world.
But Romney seemed out his depth on foreign policy and could not challenge Obama on his drone policy or the lack of an organising and coherent policy framework. Most of all, lacking ideas of his own or core beliefs, he embraced most aspects of Obama’s foreign policy, in the same way that an injured boxer would grab his opponent to save himself from punishment. The blustering Romney who claimed he believed in American power suddenly became a peacenik. At times, he did not appear presidential. And even though it might appear self-serving I was not altogether surprised by what transpired. While Romney can be very good on economic matters, he is less so when it comes to the complexities of international politics.
In fact, Rachel Maddow, who is one of the more intelligent commentators on MSNBC, had been reporting that Romney’s handlers were concerned over his meagre grasp of foreign policy and his general disinterest in the subject.
All this was evidenced in a sweating, uneasy, inarticulate, unfocused, and at times, rambling Mitt Romney who appeared on the stage last Monday. Not surprisingly, he reversed himself on every issue: the killing of bin Laden; the use of drones to kill Islamic militants; Afghanistan; Iraq; Israel and Syria. He was in complete agreement with Obama on these issues. And even when he sought to mount an attack on Obama for being “weak” on the defence of Israel and doing an “apology tour “on America’s behalf, he got a withering response, which reduced him to silence. It was only on Iran where he gave voice to the idea of indicting Ahmadinejad for “crimes” that there appeared to be a difference between the President and the challenger.
But Romney did have his moments. His contention that one cannot kill one’s way out of the problems with the Islamists is valid and must inform policy consideration in the future. Equally, his assertion or suggestion, that there is need for an overarching policy in the Middle East is unarguable. At the end of the night, the question was whether Romney might suffer in the polls as a result of his less than stellar performance.
It is now in the public domain that Obama and Romney do not care much for each other. The personal animus between the two men was very much on display during the last debate on Monday last. Certainly, it was so on Obama’s part. Verbally sharp and well prepared, it was clear that his intention was to emphasize the differences between himself and Mitt Romney on foreign policy. And where he could not do so, he scornfully thanked Romney for supporting his policies.
At times he was deliberately condescending as when he told him that he was handicapped by the fact that he did not actually have the opportunity to execute foreign policy.
Of course, his now famous put down of Romney over the size of the navy has, as they say these days, gone “viral”. I quote from the transcript of the debate: “You mentioned the Navy, for example, and that we have fewer ships than we did in 1916. Well, Governor, we also have fewer horses and bayonets, because the nature of our military’s changed. We have these things called aircraft carriers, where planes land on them. We have these ships that go underwater, nuclear submarines.” The written version does not capture the rasp of irritation with which this was spoken.
Yet one has to be troubled by what this debate revealed. If Romney’s performance is anything to go by, the Republican party is bankrupt of foreign policy ideas. In the immediate past, the GOP was the party, guided by such intellects as Kissinger, Nixon and the senior Bush, to name a few, who invested it with expertise and produced some of the ideas which did honour to America’s foreign policy.
On the other hand, it seems that after four years Obama’s White House has not worked out an organising principle for its foreign policy. There has been no Alliance for Progress, Caribbean Basin Initiative, Year of Europe or détente. The pivot to Asia remains vague and undeveloped. And it is perplexing that in a country as large and influential as the United States a presidential election cannot attract a debate on such big questions as climate change, the rise and consequence of the BRIC nations, the reform of global institutions, the economic crisis in Europe, world poverty, and threat of new diseases.
And there was no substantive debate on China, America’s banker and most important rival. This foreign policy debate generated more agreement than light.
It remains to be seen whether Romney’s tacking to the centre (some claim it is complete abandonment of principles) during the debate or Obama’s ‘victory’ will capture the 6% of undecided voters and seal this close election.
What is certain is that both men are about to make a final sprint across the country in a desperate and final attempt to gain victory.
