If you watched the third and final night of the Democratic convention, it was hard to miss the emphasis on foreign policy, national security, military policy, and international affairs. These issues represented more than a fifth of President Obama's address, and speaker after speaker emphasized Democratic credibility on the subject.
Sen. John Kerry (D-Mass.), in particular, seemed to be having a terrific time going after Mitt Romney's foreign policy ignorance, inexperience, and general confusion.
But in the bigger picture, the Democratic message, especially when compared to what Americans heard in Tampa, reinforced what Fred Kaplan called "a staggering shift": it's Democrats who've become "the dominant foreign-policy party."
The conventions these past two weeks -- and particularly the final speeches Thursday night -- have cemented the fact that the Democratic party is now the party of national-security policy; not just a wise or thoughtful foreign and military policy, but any kind of thinking whatsoever about matters beyond the water's edge. [...]
It was the Democrats who talked Thursday night of their president's "backbone" and "courage," of the clear message he sent -- as Vice President Joe Biden put it when talking about the raid on Osama bin Laden's compound -- that "if you attack innocent Americans, we will follow you to the ends of the world." By contrast, Biden recalled, Republican challenger Mitt Romney once said that it wasn't worth "moving heaven and earth, and spending billions of dollars, just to catch one person."
More extraordinary still, it was the Democrats who saluted, mourned, and celebrated the "fallen angels" and "wounded warriors" of the U.S. military. Romney observed no such ritual.
Quite right. Romney ignored the war in Afghanistan as if it doesn't exist, and failed to even mention veterans. He was, as the AP noted, "the first Republican since 1952 to accept his party's nomination without mentioning war."
To be sure, Romney and his party hope to maintain the appearance of credibility by attacking looming Pentagon cuts -- blaming Obama for reductions Republicans came up with -- but for anyone with even a passing interest in the broader subject, it's hard not to notice Romney's only foreign policy experience is his Swiss bank account, and his running mate's claim to expertise is his vote to launch a disastrous war in Iraq.
What's more, as Kaplan concluded, "Murkiest of all is the question of what happened to the Republican Party as a player -- as the presumptive leader -- in foreign affairs. It's not healthy, either for this election or for the state of American democracy, to have just one of the two major parties take so much as a serious interest in the subject, even if -- by evidence of the past few years -- it's the better of those parties."
Quite right. It's troubling that Romney's approach to foreign policy is an incoherent mess, but it's much worse that Romney doesn't think that matters.
Leave a Comment:
I going to go out on a limb and guess that Americans still generally blame Bush for starting those two wars, putting aside for a moment those Americans who think that Obama should have stopped those wars on his way back in the time machine he was supposed to use to stop the Janesville plant from closing.
Bush and his policies have been conspicuous by their absence in this campaign.
One comment by Bill Clinton that struck me was, in speaking of Hillary's position as Sec. State and POB's foreign policy, is that foreign policy does not have to be a "bloodsport". I think the commentators thought Clinton was talking about politics in general.
As I recall, in 2000 GWB was the guy who was light on foreign policy, but it wasn't that important, and anyway he had Cheney to show him the ropes. We all know how that went.
Romney has been all over the place with regard to Syria, Iran, etc. but no one seems too concerned.
Fact is, foreign policy is never important, until it suddenly becomes very important.
It would seem that the current crop of Republicans are more interested in bring dead horses back to life for additional beatings (see abortion, child labor, unions, etc.) and other culture issues than finishing cleaning up the messes we've made overseas so that we can focus more solely on the very serious problems we have here at home.
It's frustrating as a voter to see a group of people so obsessed with policy and party affiliation that they won't even do ANYTHING as a legislative body out of fear that the President will get some credit. Nevermind that our county is slowly crumbling as the ground turns to sand under our feet.
Our kids are dying overseas, but at least they'll be wrapped in an American flag when they're flown home in a box. Our schools have been laughably behind compared to other established nations for years, but doesn't our flag look pretty flying out front? We have homeless dying in our city streets and thrown out of hospitals for not having any insurance. Sorry, we can't worry about that. The game's on and they're about to play the national athem.
*country, not county *head desk*
Here's the sad part. The MSM considered the Republicans to be the "very serious people" on matters of foreign policy and national security when the Republicans were running this guy for president in 1999:
No one in the MSM seemed to think the 2000 Republican candidate's staggering ignorance on foreign affairs was such a much because Al Gore was such a big phony lying liar and, besides, foreign policy didn't matter now that the Soviet Union was gone.
And look how well that turned out for us.
Excellent, Sir!
I should have tacked my comments onto yours.
I'll never forget the time I saw that on TV. It was totally my first "holy crap! This guy is a total foreign policy idiot and, worse, doesn't think that's a problem! It will be a catastrophe if this guy gets elected! Something very bad will happen!" moment with Bush.
Which, as it happens, is pretty much exactly what I said after Romney published this staggeringly stupid WaPo op ed about the New START Treaty in 2010.
I'll never forget seeing that interview. It was the very first time the DANGER! DANGER! "this guy is staggeringly ignorant about foreign policy and thinks that's a qualification, not a problem! Bad Things will happen if he's elected!" klaxon went off in my head about George W. Bush.
Which is pretty much exactly what happened when I read Romney's imbecilic WaPo op-ed about the New START treaty in 2010.
9/11, and then GW Bush taught the most powerful Nation on earth to "Be afraid. Be very afraid!" Boogie men under the bed; take your shoes off, papers please, and turn your neighbor in for 'looking funny'.
All of which- ironically- now makes Obama and the Democrats the "Daddy Party"!
"He Kept Us Safe. Can you afford to take a chance on Mitt?"
Sorry, but I think Obama himself put it best of all when he said it's not very good foreign policy to travel to the Olympics and insult our number one ally.
Not only have the Republicans been dizzyingly ignorant on foreign policy since the early 90's, they've now had a new injection of ignorance: the Tea Party. And they've had Ron Paul for what 30 years?
What I want to know is, where is the John Kerry who asked "who is the last person who is going to die for a lie?" He was talking about Vietnam, but who will be the last in Afland?
he's not saying he wants war. Obama started neither war. He wants to get out as soon as possible without costing EVEN MORE LIVES
Leaving the areas destabalised if we get out and leave a vacume has been said to
Maybe he hasn't explained this enough to people. He is trying to save American and other lives overall. If Al QUida comes back to the vacume in afghanistan the people will suffer and die and so may the western world as well.
I think we don't know all he knows in detail. I don't think hes a war monger. THe surge in afganistan was for long term overall benefit to everyone, at least that was the calculatlion
Benen,
you need to get the Fox Video of Willard saying that he didn't mention the troops, because speeches are about 'WHAT'S IMPORTANT'.
Kerry really sounded great and I loved all the love for the troops and families. We really do need to take better care of them when they get home.
My brother came home from a nightmare and went to college, got a degree. It was pretty much the least we could do. He did his duty and survived it.
He was in Vietnam, bombed and packed into bunkers 2-3 deep. These people are also dealing with folks that are hard to tell if they are friendly or enemy. I was opposed to Vietnam and Iraq, but I see them all as my brother.
I certainly do not want more wars, which it seems they already put more money in the defense budget, what does that say? More wars, more spending. We do not want more wars, we want our troops out of Afghanistan. 2014 is the year ACA kicks in fully and Afghanistan ends. Will it end with the RollsRoyce clueless brothersin office that thinks Russia is our enemy?
The Republicans cannot talk about foreign policy without opening up the GWB disaster in Iraq. Voters are tired of wars and at this time, they do not want another swaggering cowboy. That will not work in this election, particularly as it relates to Iran. Of course, the Republicans are trying to reclaim the "keeping the US safe" theme by making the defense cuts an issue. I don't believe this is going to work to scare independent voters. The Obama drones and OSL killing undercut the Republican argument. No amount of shrill screeching from Liz Cheney, McCain, et al., will help the Republicans. In fact, McCain's statements along with others who wanted to continue the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan are working against the Republicans.
The DNC video of the veterans, wounded warriors, and the gold star moms was very moving and effective. Wounded pilot and veteran Tammy Duckworth was a featured speaker. Romney made an amateurish mistake in not getting there first, or, at all.
Now that Lugar has been TP primaried out, I can't think of any of the Repubs with any foreign policy/national security credibility or institutional memory. Yeah, McCain, but he pretty much disqualified himself by veering right in 2008, plus "B-b-b Iran" etc. Oh, and of course Ryan accusing the Pentagon of lying about their procurement needs isn't making him any friends in Arlington.
Meanwhile, Kerry is Chairman of the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations and seems to be rehabilitated from the Swift Boat outrage, and Panetta is making all the right moves as SecDef.
This just in:
In a statement Joe Walsh put out, regarding Tammy speaking at the Democratic Convention, he said, “It has become abundantly clear that at this point the only debate Ms. Duckworth is actually interested in having is which outfit she’ll be wearing for her big speech.”
http://org2.democracyinaction.org/o/6676/t/0/blastContent.jsp?email_blast_KEY=1217500
Joe Walsh is even more uncouth that Rmoney, well… now I'm torn, Is it worse to say troops are not important or accuse a horribly wounded veteran of fashion concern more than serving in office? It's a tie.
Neither one of them belong anywhere near D.C.
agree. What he said was denigrating and disgusting. Hateful and disrespectful. It is possible for someone running against her to easily take a much higher road. I hope the voters see this and get this. Washington does NOT NEED anyone of his ilk from either party to lead our country. He doesn't understand simple human decency how can he possibly perform adequately in office?