Stay Home Mitt-Man and I
35 minutes ago – Stay Home Mitt-Man and I. JULY 9, 2012. U.S. ELECTIONS. Dear Romney… REALISM. How to Explain Syria; U.S. ELECTIONS. A Letter to the …
Posted By Daniel W. Drezner Monday, July 9, 2012 – 4:03 AM Share
The news that Mitt Romney is planning a overseas trip/foreign policy address has led to some… interesting reactions among libertarians/realists. Even before the trip was announced, Daniel Larison thought it was a bad idea for Romney to focus on foreign policy at all. After the trip was trial-ballooned, Larison still thought it was a bad idea — as did Justin Logan at the Cato Institute (guest-posting on Steve Walt’s blog).
As someone who thought this wasn’t the worst notion in the world, it’s worth reviewing their objections. In toto:
1) Romney’s neoconservative-friendly foreign policy views are unpopular in both the United States and many of the countries on Romney’s itinerary — so there’s no upside. As Larison puts it: “Romney’s hawkish critics haven’t fully grasped that foreign policy has become a weakness for the GOP over the last six years, so it makes no sense to them that it might help their presidential candidate to avoid talking about it.”
2) This is an election about the economy, and any energy Romney devotes to foreign policy is wasted. As Logan notes, “Sometimes foreign-policy wonks have trouble divorcing what they are interested in from what voters are interested in…. Unless I’m missing something big here, every minute Romney spends overseas is a minute he’s spending away from winning the election.”
3) Even if (1) and (2) do not apply, there is very little political upside to be gained from visiting other countries. Larison goes through the various possible upsides for a challenger to go abroad, but doesn’t find them terribly convincing.
So, how to respond? First, let’s parse this out into two questions. First, should candidates talk more about foreign policy because it’s good for democracy? Second, is it in their own political interests to talk more/visit other countries?
I hope Larison and Logan would agree that, political imperatives aside, it would be A Good Thing for the Country if presidential candidates talked more about foreign policy. Presidents have much more leeway in conducting foreign policy than domestic policy. They wind up spending about half their time and energy as president on foreign policy. Given its importance to the office, the fact that it’s not talked about all that much during the campaign is kinda problematic. It might be worthwhile for major party candidates to openly discuss/think about their foreign policy views just a bit.
Now, on whether it’s politically savvy for presidential candidates to talk about this stuff, I largely agree with Logan and Larison. Voters don’t care about foreign policy. In Romney’s case, however, there are a few reasons why a summer foreign policy trip makes some sense.
First, er, it’s the summer. Logan is correct that foreign policy wonks tend to confuse what interests them with what interests the public, but so do campaign advisors. The undecideds aren’t dwelling on politics at the moment, and likely won’t do so until after the Summer Olympics are over. All these peple will do is process the occasional headline. If Romney has to choose between this headline and ones about foreign policy, he might prefer the latter.
Second, at least one of his foreign policy trips will play well domestically. Larison and Logan grumble about it, but they both appear to acknowledge that the Israel leg of the trip would likely fire up the evangelical base and peel off disaffected Jews from Obama’s coalition. If he’s going all the way to Israel, then a few more days/stops make some sense.
Third, and finally, Romney dug his own grave on this issue. In op-ed after op-ed, Romney has relied on blowhard rhetoric and a near-total absence of detail to make his case. In doing so, Romney is the one who has sowed the doubts about his foreign policy gravitas in the first place. If his campaign manages to produce a successful foreign policy speech/road trip, he can dial down one source of base criticism — and focus again on the economy in the fall. And eliminating base citicism matters domestically — the media tends to magnify within-party critiques as being more newsworthy.
The best criticism is Larison’s contention that the actual content of Romney’s foreign policy vision might not go down so well with the American people. This might be true, but it might not be. The thing is, no one is entirely sure what Romney thinks about foreign policy. Maybe his op-eds were nothing but rhetorical bluster — as campaign musings about foreign policy tend to be. It’s also possible/likely that whatever foreign policy speeches he delivers in the next month or so wouldn’t match his actions once in office. As I noted last year, however, there is value in having a presidential candidate demonstrate “generic foreign policy knowledge.”
I suspect both Larison and Logan would prefer a foreign policy in which the United States doesn’t aim to do as much abroad, allowing the country to retrench and revitalize the domestic economy. That’s a compelling argument (and, actually, one that President Obama made in his first few years of office). Just because Romney might disagree with that approach, however, is no reason for him to clam up on foreign affairs this summer. As a democracy, we’re entitled to hear about how he thinks about these issues. Politically, a well-executed foreign policy trip won’t net him a lot of votes, but it would cauterize a festering politcal wound and allow him to pivot back to the economy.
More From FP
Around the Web
Welcome to Foreign Policy’s new commenting system! The good news is that it’s now easier than ever to comment and share your insights with friends. Here’s how it works: You can now sign in by creating a LiveFyre account (which will replace the ForeignPolicy.com accounts from now on), or using a Twitter or Facebook account, and carry on a conversation with your fellow commenters in the section below. You do not have to sign in using a social network if you choose to remain anonymous – simply use a LiveFyre account to continue commenting. For more information, click here.
By any chance, my dear Daniel W Drezner, You want Mitt Romeny’s travel agent? Reservation of hotel suites, road maps, charts, diagrams of major events, taxis, gondola rides, tips, taxes, foreign exchange at discount rates, guides, spiritual gurus, and side trips to Wailing Wall and or Vatican?
Give it a rest, please. As stated, the trip may require major face lift for Mitt, poor man, already suffering from, almost, fatal assault on his (business as usual) business, aka, job creation skills by Democrat rascals and rats.
Better stay home and spend some quality time with stay-home wife Ann. Better yet, do some home work on sagging local (US) economy and problems associated with its future manifestations than go on a frivolous trip-drip-dripping “la dolce vita” in Europe.
6 days ago – Jun 16, 2012 – वसुधैव कुटुंबकम – My Dear Gennady Yevstafiev, I am Sid Harth. … Ad related to @mysistereileen.com Barack Obama Mitt …
4 days ago – Republican U.S. Presidential candidate and former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney speaks in response to the U.S. Supreme Court ruling …
Jun 29, 2012 – 23 minutes ago – WASHINGTON — So much for Mitt Romney escaping health care. … Both laws also impose penalties on people who can …
6 days ago – Ad related to @mysistereileen.com Barack Obama Mitt Romney … … Join Our Support Campaign Get Info at Mitt RomneyIn 2012.com. Mitt on …
Jun 27, 2012 – Since you have done such a good job of exposing Mitt Romney campaign’s lack of focus on US foreign policy, what am I to add to it?
5 days ago – Mitt Romney Suicide Watch™ Back On After Santorum Sweep. Fresh off big momentum-building wins in Florida and Nevada, Mitt lost three …
Jun 29, 2012 – mysistereileen.com/. Ad related to Goodbye Mitt Romney, Nice knowing you वसुधैव … … Jun 11, 2012 – Ray Bradbury, 91, no More वसुधैव …
Jun 24, 2012 – Ever since Portman endorsed Mitt Romney in January, ahead of Ohio’s March primary, the freshman … Log In to Post a Comment …
by MS Prudence
3 days ago – न मम. mysistereileen.com/?p=4214. 13 hours ago – Mitt Romney on Suicide Watch « इदं न मम. …. वसुधैव कुटुंबकम – Uncle Sam, Whistle …
Jun 22, 2012 – Jun 14, 2012 – 10 hours ago – May 14, 2012 – …and I am Sid Harth@mysistereileen.com … Mitt Romney’s sometimes hawkish foreign policy …
…and I am Sid Harth@webworldismyoyster.com
Sorry but this article misses the point about Romney’s foreign policy interventions – they’re not a means to set the foreign policy agenda but primarily a way to fundraise, specifically among AIPAC supporters for whom even Obama isn’t supportive enough of Israel. It’d lead to a more open debate about foreign policy if writers like Daniel Drezner would focus on the reality of what’s going on here.
The simple truth is that Democrats will always have the foreign policy advantage over Republicans because, in order to create a plausible foreign policy one must think thoughtfully about the rest of the world, which precludes adhering to the notion that, “America is and forever will be the unquestioned hegemon of the planet and everyone else is impotent and irrelevant,” ie. how Romney & Co. view the world.
Songshu Are the Democrats and Republicans that far apart? During the very worst episode in America’s recent foreign policy – the invasion of Iraq – both the Republican and the Democrat foreign policy establishments were fully on board. Those who opposed the war were virtually cast out of both camps at the time, and even now many of the key Democrat foreign policy seers refuse to acknowledge that Iraq was a mistake only that Bush’s handling of it was wrong.
That’s not to say that there aren’t some differences, but there’s an element (if more politely stated) of “America is and forever will be the unquestioned hegemon of the planet and everyone else is impotent and irrelevant” about the liberal hawks in the Democrat party, especially when it comes to their “R2P” ideology and its implications for state sovereignty.
December It’s a fair point. I suppose it depends on an individual’s definition of “recent” – the Iraq war vote was almost a decade ago. In fact, as we were perpetually reminded during Dem primary of ’08, the man now running our country was not even a senator at that time. You are also conflating (as I suppose I did as well) the 50+ Dem senators with Obama himself. As a young idealist who thought Obama’s initial outreach and display of contrition (Cairo speech, etc.) were important not because they led to tangible success but because they were the right thing to do, I can’t picture the equivalent emanating from anywhere under the Repub tent.
I didn’t mean to give the impression that I revere Dem leaders as a whole, however. If you are contending that most of Dem Sens are akin to Repubs in that they are intellectually lazy, self-indulgent egomaniacs who only care about reelection, you’ll get no argument from me.
Whether Romney talking about fp is good for democracy is kindof tangential to the issue you raise, no? The question is rather whether it would be in his interest to do so. I mean, it would be good for democracy if we had public financing of elections, but Obama destroyed any possibility of that in the last election, because it was the right thing for him to do to win. Similarly, the responses you cite seem right: Very few voters are going to be focused on anything other than the horrible economy, so it’s largely wasted energy, and Americans are really not in the mood for another neocon president.
Daniel W. Drezner is professor of international politics at the Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy at Tufts University.
1899 L Street NW, Suite 550 | 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 ©2012 The Foreign Policy Group, LLC. All rights reserved.
…and I am Sid Harth@webworldismyoyster.com