I have found Mitt’s recent foreign policy tour a little disconcerting. I’m frankly uncomfortable with foreign policy tours by candidate in general. Perhaps I’m just old fashioned, but there is some value to the notion of a united front in our foreign relations, and I’m not willing to ditch this principle simply because Obama is at the helm. I actually think his mostly modest foreign policy and withdrawal from Iraq have been real highlights of his presidency.
Also isn’t it kind of weird and unseemly to raise money during a foreign tour? Mitt has apparently conducted a number of fundraisers in Israel. Even if this is somehow within the letter of the law, do we want foreign money (or the perception of such) in our elections? Is he being given the right kind of advice here? I remember the big Buddhist Temple fundraising scandal with Gore a few years ago; perception had as much to do with the scandal as the legal prohibition. Why isn’t this also a little scandalous? I guess most of these folks are ex-pats, but shouldn’t it matter many have dual passports and no present connection to the US and that this trip is in a foreign country and much of Romney’s rhetoric involves pledging American fealty to that country?
This bigger problem is that insecure Mitt is apparently going all quasi-Evangelical on Israel, perhaps to shore up his support not so much among Jews as his more fragile support among Baptists and the like. Truthfully, it doesn’t appear he ever gave foreign policy or Israel much thought until recently. And one of my chief concern for him is, like George W, that his empty vessel views on foreign policy will put him in the orbit of the same idiotic neoconservative that got us into the Iraq mess and who now counsel similar interventions in Syria due to their failure to distinguish America’s interests from Israel’s, among other problems with their thinking.
Hawkish views on Israel have disproportionately gotten Republicans screwed up in recent years. Part of my overall beef here has to do with Romney’s rhetoric. It is unseemly to talk so romantically and idealistically in foreign policy matters. Such thinking is a sign of confusion and,in some cases, of disloyalty. The tone must always be hard-headed, one of weighing interests, and the like. Sentimentalism prevents clear thinking and good policy.
Republican foreign policy idealism in general is a significant impediment to good policy, and pro-Israel fanaticism is just one manifestation of it. We’ve gone from George W Bush and his “every Muslim wants freedom” ideas to McCain and “we are all Georgians now” to Romney’s speech in Israel. Reprinted below, it sounds very unlike the tone an American politician should have; it’s fawning and unduly constrictive and shows real confusion about his duties and to whom they’re owed:
I believe that the enduring alliance between the State of Israel and the United States of America is more than a strategic alliance: it is a force for good in the world. America’s support of Israel should make every American proud. We should not allow the inevitable complexities of modern geopolitics to obscure fundamental touchstones. No country or organization or individual should ever doubt this basic truth: A free and strong America will always (!) stand with a free and strong Israel.
And standing by Israel does not mean with military and intelligence cooperation alone.
We cannot stand silent as those who seek to undermine Israel, voice their criticisms. And we certainly should not join in that criticism (!). Diplomatic distance in public between our nations emboldens Israel’s adversaries.
Subscribe To This Feed
Yes, and he’s even worse on Russia than on Israel. I mean, is there any cause – any cause at all, aside for Cold War nostalgia – that should put Russia and America on opposite sides? Yet, both Romney and Putin talk and act as if it’s 1983 – absurd. And as for Israel, I certainly support the right of Israel to exist within secure borders, and I’d probably even call myself a Christian Zionist if pressed, but to simply assume that the national interests of Israel and the U.S. are identical is the height of irresponsibility. No country should get a blank check from another country, it’s bad for all concerned. I’ll vote for Romney this fall, a second Obama term simply doesn’t bear thinking about. But it’s not 1967 or 1983 anymore, and the quicker Republicans realize this, the better off we’ll all be.
Agreed on Russia. Putin too is very confrontational, and I may misjudge him, but I should think some conciliatory gestures and cooperation on Chechnya, NATO expansion, etc would go a long way.
Well, it certainly would be worth a try, I doubt that Putin would bite, but you never know. We certainly could avoid antagonizing Russia with regard to issues that have zero imparct on our national security, like Georgia and Chechnya. The confrontation we had over Georgia a few years ago was borderline insane, especially since, as near as I could tell, the Russians were pretty much right, and the Georgians were pretty much wrong. I say this as a guy who hated, and still hates Communism, but – telegram for Republicans – the Communist are not currently running Russia. You have to wonder if some of our friends on the Right even realize this…
Obama, who stood in front of a massive crowd of Europeans, our closest allies, and nearest, socio-economic kin, was pilloried by the right for daring to suggest that he would bring a less militaristic tone to American foreign policy. They even gave him an undeserved Nobel Peace prize to encourage him to keep his word. Never-the-less, like the typical centrist that he is, he split the difference, withdrawing from Iraq, and “surging” Afghanistan.
The American public is tired of military adventurism, and accurately perceives we cannot afford it. Besides the euro meltdown or eurexit, a U.S.-Iranian hot war is the next great danger to the global economy, and will trigger the second down leg of deleveraging.
Rather than visit Israel Vassal Romney should have gone first to Asia, probably S. Korea, as Taiwan would be a provocation.The S. Koreans who run a democracy and a pretty good economy, with all the social values hailed by Republicans, took it on the nose from the North, and couldn’t get an ounce of respect from the Chinese, for whom they are a much larger trade partner and source of investment. So, a Romney visit would signal he was a step ahead in the Asia swing were undergoing, while upstaging Obama and tweaking the Chinese.
For a second stop, instead of Europe, Poland, really?, that’s so 1990′s, if he’s feeling daring for democracy,Tunisia, where democracy (lite) green shoots are budding. If he’s playing it safer, Turkey a model (less so than before) of moderate Islam, a democracy, a decent economy and a loyalish ally. Again he would have shown himself ahead of the geopolitical game, because if he becomes president, that’s where his time will be focused. Finally, if he wants to play it safe he would have gone to Chile, another loyal Ally, a Democracy, and a decent economy. All those options would have shown he had some perspective beyond small town America. Any deft American politician has to have those two bases covered to be a presidential contender, a feel for for the little guy, and, an ability to accurately point to the Indo-Pak line of control on a map.
All that, and much more points to an Obama second term, as the least nasty, path of decline, resistance. Vassal Romney, along with a Tea party ascendant Republican congress, in combination with a possible Republican take over of the Senate, would lurch us towards both deep austerity, and militarism at the same time. One proven wisdom of the American public, is it’s instinctive splitting of the House, Senate and White House, in order to prevent too much policy orientation one way or the other. Republican control, Democrat control, and total gridlock, produce very bad policy. Mild gridlock on the other hand is the meddlers way through, and our ideal 2013 onward scenario.
Chris, as far as Romeny’s foreign fundraisers, they were often prepared by Republicans abroad with US citizens participating as major donors, e.g. Sheldon Adelson. Otherwise, you are exactly right: the trip to Israel was not so much a neo-conservative junket but, rather, primarily an attempt to woo the evangelicals.
cheers, Marek