Mitt Romney
"We can't
kill our way out of this mess," he declared early in the debate, a
point that, had it been made by Mr. Obama, would have been treated as
evidence of Democratic pusillanimity. He offered a vision for Mideast
social and economic progress so wholly unobjectionable it would have
made any Peace Corps volunteer proud. On Syria, Egypt, Afghanistan,
Iran, drone strikes and China he offered policy prescriptions that—as
Mr. Obama didn't fail to notice—were all-but identical in substance to
the administration's.
He even got in a personal dig on President Bush toward the end, in connection to the auto bailout.
Did it matter? I doubt it. There's a case to be made that Mr. Obama
has been a disengaged, poll-driven, inconsistent, credulous and cocksure
steward of American foreign policy. Mr. Romney didn't seem interested
in making it, and as a matter of politics didn't need to make it. His
most effective turns in the debate came when he brought it all back to
the economy. He seemed reasonable and tempered and pragmatic and
unruffled and therefore presidential.
Impressions in politics can be forever. Foreign-policy positions are, as the Romney campaign might say, strictly Etch-a-Sketch.
Then there was Barack Obama. He also needed to pass some tests in
this debate, especially with voters who in recent weeks have been
casting more skeptical glances at his foreign policy.
For any Democrat, there will always be the Carter test. Mr. Obama has
so far operated on the assumption that dispatching Osama bin Laden and
ramping up the drones strikes would forever insulate him from
accusations of Carterism.
Yet memories of the Carter administration echo in the Muslim
Brotherhood's ascendancy in Egypt, and the perception of weakness abroad
caused by malaise at home, and the standoffish manner toward reliable
U.S. allies and ingratiating manner with longstanding U.S. adversaries.
Undecided viewers of the debate will probably concede that Mr. Obama
passed the Carter test with yet another barrage of bin Laden death
notices. But the impression that here is a president presiding over
malaise will linger.
Next there is the Nixon test, unexpectedly brought about by events in
Benghazi and the administration's shape-shifting accounts of how it
happened and what followed. As the old question goes: What did the
president know, and when did he know it?
This debate should have been the occasion to answer it, after the
missed opportunity in the last debate. That it didn't happen will
someday be understood as either a missed chance for Mr. Romney or a
careful calculation. But the upshot was that the president dodged the
Nixon test.
Finally there is the Clinton test. Remember the time Mr. Clinton
lobbed cruise missiles at a pharmaceutical plant in Sudan—right when he
was admitting to his affair with Monica Lewinsky? Or the time he bombed
Baghdad—just as he was facing impeachment in the House? With Bill,
everything was political. With Barack, it's that and then some.
Two points in particular: Mr. Obama referred at least twice to Israel as "our
greatest ally
in the region," a subtle but definable shift from his usual references
to the Jewish state being one ally among several. This is the kind of
pandering that fooled Jewish-American voters once. Will it fool them
again?
And then he said: "One thing I've learned as commander in chief,
you've got to be clear to our allies and enemies about where you stand
and what you mean." If only that described the president we've had these
past four years.
Score-keepers will say the debate went for Mr. Obama. Maybe it did.
But Mitt Romney emerges looking like a perfectly plausible
president—which was no doubt all he wanted from tonight.
No comments:
Post a Comment