![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
mahnmut.livejournal.com posting in ![[community profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/community.png){kind=small}
talkpoliticsAll right, now srsly about foreign policy. It's common knowledge that Americans don't care about foreign policy too much (if at all) - as was seen by the viewer stats for the third debate. But the rest of the world does care what each of the candidates would do, once elected to office. Especially when the candidates appear so awkwardly similar in their stances, or at least one of them has done great efforts to make himself look similar to the other, most probably in a cynical attempt to pander to moderate voters. Anyway...
There's a sense around non-Americans, particularly among those who hastened to cheer Obama on million-strong rallies chanting his name after he was elected, that the many hopes and expectations for a quick and drastic change in Washington's foreign policy haven't been met. Meanwhile, the frequent flip-flopping of the other candidate on a number of crucial issues has created confusion about the possible direction he'd steer the huge US military, political and economic machine. Meanwhile, the growing list of challenges requiring America's active attention includes the global recession, the various Middle East conflicts, the change of power in China, and the growing tension around Iran's nuclear aspirations.
All the gaffes, awkward moments and well measured tricks plaguing this election campaign have increased the global interest additionally. Hell, most of us furrinnerz around here on this very forum have ourselves been sucked into innumerable debates on US (foreign) policy.
One example is Romney's comment from a couple of weeks ago that he doesn't want America to take the path of such fiscally irresponsible nations like Spain. That caused fear in Spain of possibly losing the confidence of the international markets. A single remark is able to do that, yes. Then came the anger, because Rajoy's government is actually trying to do something about the budget deficit in a serious way (unlike its US counterpart).
Meanwhile, anyone who has followed the US election cycle, couldn't help but be impressed by the noticeably large number of Chinese journalists on the campaign trail. Apparently they've been sent to the US to report about Romney's threats that he'd declare China a global currency manipulator on his Day 1 in office. The Russian media are also closely following the statements of the two candidates, looking for any hints about their intended stance to Putin's Russia. In fact I'd argue that you'd find much more insightful and well-thought analyses of the US political situation in the Russian media than in the US ones (which are mostly focused on the sensationalist side). I'm not going to argue which are more unbiased, because neither could boast of impartiality and lack of agenda.
And suddenly, the conventional election tactic of harsh tone and bombastic statements was suddenly turned to 180" in the last debate where Romney was mostly agreeing with Obama. HUH!? Turns out Romney's latest (10th?) tactic is "Same as Obama's, but more and better". On one side, that was an attempt to mitigate the uncertainty around Romney's possible foreign policies, especially after all his recent gaffes on the subject that had almost derailed his candidacy and allower Obama to attack him mercilessly on the last debate. On the other side, it was a silent admission that the approach of the current administration is mostly centrist, rather than extremist-leftist or any other such scary sort of thing.
For many observers who care somewhat about foreign policy, the differences between Obama and Romney in terms of foreign policy had always been artificially overhyped anyway. It's no secret that candidate campaigns are inherently about exaggerating the differences between the candidates way beyond anything realistic. In fact, if we look at the two platforms on foreign policy, they're more similar than different.
Both candidates believe the US should continue to be this "irreplaceable nation" who's the main factor for stability and democracy in the world - all of this idealist exceptionalism being coupled with a pragmatic striving for balance between the desired and the realistically achievable. Both are willing to re-direct the focus on Asia, both are planning a withdrawal from Afghanistan by the end of 2014 (Romney finally making up his mind after a series of flip-flops on the matter), and both would use more predator drones for their operations against international terrorism (which is better than bayonets). I'd argue both would share the same pragmatic and direct temperament, as far as foreign relations are concerned.
Well, granted, until very recently such similarities were deemed extremely unwanted and inappropriate by the Romney camp, because for many among the conservative base, "Mitt the moderate" was more like blasphemy rather than a compliment. But Romney's swing to the radical right for the sake of consolidating the right vote, was exactly what brought the many gaffes and errors in his campaign in the first place. Like insisting that Russia is America's geopolitical foe #1, or saying that the Palestinians would never achieve prosperity and peace because their culture is an obstacle, or the series of ass-licking gestures to Netanyahu, or the promise for an openly confrontational course against China. All these extremities didn't have the intended effect to ignite enthusiasm among the conservative hardliners, while they gave Obama enough ammo to paint his opponent as a foreign-policy adventurous opportunist who didn't know what he was doing. Not cool at all.
The ultimate game changer was the assassination of the US ambassador in Benghazi. The attack not only sent foreign policy right into the center of the public focus, but it raised some tough questions to the current administration. Questions that were so sensitive, they even outshone the umptieth series of tactical errors in the Romney camp. In principle, foreign policy looked like an area where Obama had a clear advantage. The big success with eliminating bin Laden, the successful withdrawal from Iraq (a very unpopular war), and the toughest sanctions on Iran to date - all good news for Obama. Also, the delicate backstage games that created an active coalition that brought down Gaddafi in Libya, i.e. "leadership from behind the scenes". Obama sure has a lot to brag about.
But the incident in Benghazi suddenly undermined the president's argument that he's steering America with competence into a safe direction, away from open confrontations in the Middle East. The central question now is if Obama's doctrine is really more effective than anything invented until now by any Republican administration, or we're seeing signs that his approach could ultimately unleash a new series of fires throughout the region. Apparently, many US voters are still looking for the answer, and Romney, being the perfect opportunist that he is, will sure try to bag some votes among those who are disappointed or confused with all this.
Although the more sober tone has defined the approach on foreign policy up till now, the consequences from the polarized campaign on all other issues can't help but reflect on this area as well. Especially Romney's frequent change of position on many issues is creating a sense of insecurity, and his circle of aides include both neocon hawks like John Bolton and prominent experts like Rich Williamson - which adds to the confusion. Some have argued that right now no one really knows what Romney's true foreign policies would be, because there's obviously a war going on for his soul behind the scenes. And the outcome is still unclear.
All the weirdly extreme sounding statements during this election battle are also threatening to make any future Romney administration a hostage to various extremist agendas. Howard Dean has even bet 10 thousand bucks that the first promise Romney would break if elected, is that he'd declare China a major currency manipulator on his Day 1 in office. In all seriousness, Romney doesn't have a good move in this case - he'll either lose more of his credibility, or he'll risk a trade war with an emerging superpower on which the US is very dependent. The same is valid for his promise that he'd increase the military budget to 4% of the GDP. This is something that contradicts his own political program of drastic cuts in the public debt.
On the other hand, if Obama wins a second term, he'll also have to face lots of challenges, which are becoming visible during the election battle. For example, if the GOP gains control of both the House and Senate, the Tea Party ideas for drastic cuts in the international aid for friendly regimes, and curbing the partnership with the UN, would significantly shrink the administration's foreign policy initiatives, and possibly make the US retreat from more areas of the world. In these circumstances, the formula of building broad inclusive coalitions for interventions in sensitive spots like Libya wouldn't be so easy. And it's not like such spots don't exist right now - like Syria, the Horn of Africa, etc.
But the bigger problem is that, while until now, the Obama administration was more or less continuing the relatively more moderate policies from the second GWB term, now approaching everything in foreign relations from the standpoint of the global War on Terror is obviously becoming more inadequate as the time passes. The complex processes in the Middle East after the Arab spring, the violence in Syria, and Iran's aggressive pursuit of nukes, all require a new approach. The same is valid for Asia, which is emerging as the new center of global economic and geopolitical power.
The good news for a potential second Obama administration is that it'll certainly have one problem less than Romney's. If Obama wins, the relations with China would be visibly more constructive. As far as all other areas of foreign policy are concerned? Meh... Things would hardly be much different either way.
There's a sense around non-Americans, particularly among those who hastened to cheer Obama on million-strong rallies chanting his name after he was elected, that the many hopes and expectations for a quick and drastic change in Washington's foreign policy haven't been met. Meanwhile, the frequent flip-flopping of the other candidate on a number of crucial issues has created confusion about the possible direction he'd steer the huge US military, political and economic machine. Meanwhile, the growing list of challenges requiring America's active attention includes the global recession, the various Middle East conflicts, the change of power in China, and the growing tension around Iran's nuclear aspirations.
All the gaffes, awkward moments and well measured tricks plaguing this election campaign have increased the global interest additionally. Hell, most of us furrinnerz around here on this very forum have ourselves been sucked into innumerable debates on US (foreign) policy.
One example is Romney's comment from a couple of weeks ago that he doesn't want America to take the path of such fiscally irresponsible nations like Spain. That caused fear in Spain of possibly losing the confidence of the international markets. A single remark is able to do that, yes. Then came the anger, because Rajoy's government is actually trying to do something about the budget deficit in a serious way (unlike its US counterpart).
Meanwhile, anyone who has followed the US election cycle, couldn't help but be impressed by the noticeably large number of Chinese journalists on the campaign trail. Apparently they've been sent to the US to report about Romney's threats that he'd declare China a global currency manipulator on his Day 1 in office. The Russian media are also closely following the statements of the two candidates, looking for any hints about their intended stance to Putin's Russia. In fact I'd argue that you'd find much more insightful and well-thought analyses of the US political situation in the Russian media than in the US ones (which are mostly focused on the sensationalist side). I'm not going to argue which are more unbiased, because neither could boast of impartiality and lack of agenda.
And suddenly, the conventional election tactic of harsh tone and bombastic statements was suddenly turned to 180" in the last debate where Romney was mostly agreeing with Obama. HUH!? Turns out Romney's latest (10th?) tactic is "Same as Obama's, but more and better". On one side, that was an attempt to mitigate the uncertainty around Romney's possible foreign policies, especially after all his recent gaffes on the subject that had almost derailed his candidacy and allower Obama to attack him mercilessly on the last debate. On the other side, it was a silent admission that the approach of the current administration is mostly centrist, rather than extremist-leftist or any other such scary sort of thing.
For many observers who care somewhat about foreign policy, the differences between Obama and Romney in terms of foreign policy had always been artificially overhyped anyway. It's no secret that candidate campaigns are inherently about exaggerating the differences between the candidates way beyond anything realistic. In fact, if we look at the two platforms on foreign policy, they're more similar than different.
Both candidates believe the US should continue to be this "irreplaceable nation" who's the main factor for stability and democracy in the world - all of this idealist exceptionalism being coupled with a pragmatic striving for balance between the desired and the realistically achievable. Both are willing to re-direct the focus on Asia, both are planning a withdrawal from Afghanistan by the end of 2014 (Romney finally making up his mind after a series of flip-flops on the matter), and both would use more predator drones for their operations against international terrorism (which is better than bayonets). I'd argue both would share the same pragmatic and direct temperament, as far as foreign relations are concerned.
Well, granted, until very recently such similarities were deemed extremely unwanted and inappropriate by the Romney camp, because for many among the conservative base, "Mitt the moderate" was more like blasphemy rather than a compliment. But Romney's swing to the radical right for the sake of consolidating the right vote, was exactly what brought the many gaffes and errors in his campaign in the first place. Like insisting that Russia is America's geopolitical foe #1, or saying that the Palestinians would never achieve prosperity and peace because their culture is an obstacle, or the series of ass-licking gestures to Netanyahu, or the promise for an openly confrontational course against China. All these extremities didn't have the intended effect to ignite enthusiasm among the conservative hardliners, while they gave Obama enough ammo to paint his opponent as a foreign-policy adventurous opportunist who didn't know what he was doing. Not cool at all.
The ultimate game changer was the assassination of the US ambassador in Benghazi. The attack not only sent foreign policy right into the center of the public focus, but it raised some tough questions to the current administration. Questions that were so sensitive, they even outshone the umptieth series of tactical errors in the Romney camp. In principle, foreign policy looked like an area where Obama had a clear advantage. The big success with eliminating bin Laden, the successful withdrawal from Iraq (a very unpopular war), and the toughest sanctions on Iran to date - all good news for Obama. Also, the delicate backstage games that created an active coalition that brought down Gaddafi in Libya, i.e. "leadership from behind the scenes". Obama sure has a lot to brag about.
But the incident in Benghazi suddenly undermined the president's argument that he's steering America with competence into a safe direction, away from open confrontations in the Middle East. The central question now is if Obama's doctrine is really more effective than anything invented until now by any Republican administration, or we're seeing signs that his approach could ultimately unleash a new series of fires throughout the region. Apparently, many US voters are still looking for the answer, and Romney, being the perfect opportunist that he is, will sure try to bag some votes among those who are disappointed or confused with all this.
Although the more sober tone has defined the approach on foreign policy up till now, the consequences from the polarized campaign on all other issues can't help but reflect on this area as well. Especially Romney's frequent change of position on many issues is creating a sense of insecurity, and his circle of aides include both neocon hawks like John Bolton and prominent experts like Rich Williamson - which adds to the confusion. Some have argued that right now no one really knows what Romney's true foreign policies would be, because there's obviously a war going on for his soul behind the scenes. And the outcome is still unclear.
All the weirdly extreme sounding statements during this election battle are also threatening to make any future Romney administration a hostage to various extremist agendas. Howard Dean has even bet 10 thousand bucks that the first promise Romney would break if elected, is that he'd declare China a major currency manipulator on his Day 1 in office. In all seriousness, Romney doesn't have a good move in this case - he'll either lose more of his credibility, or he'll risk a trade war with an emerging superpower on which the US is very dependent. The same is valid for his promise that he'd increase the military budget to 4% of the GDP. This is something that contradicts his own political program of drastic cuts in the public debt.
On the other hand, if Obama wins a second term, he'll also have to face lots of challenges, which are becoming visible during the election battle. For example, if the GOP gains control of both the House and Senate, the Tea Party ideas for drastic cuts in the international aid for friendly regimes, and curbing the partnership with the UN, would significantly shrink the administration's foreign policy initiatives, and possibly make the US retreat from more areas of the world. In these circumstances, the formula of building broad inclusive coalitions for interventions in sensitive spots like Libya wouldn't be so easy. And it's not like such spots don't exist right now - like Syria, the Horn of Africa, etc.
But the bigger problem is that, while until now, the Obama administration was more or less continuing the relatively more moderate policies from the second GWB term, now approaching everything in foreign relations from the standpoint of the global War on Terror is obviously becoming more inadequate as the time passes. The complex processes in the Middle East after the Arab spring, the violence in Syria, and Iran's aggressive pursuit of nukes, all require a new approach. The same is valid for Asia, which is emerging as the new center of global economic and geopolitical power.
The good news for a potential second Obama administration is that it'll certainly have one problem less than Romney's. If Obama wins, the relations with China would be visibly more constructive. As far as all other areas of foreign policy are concerned? Meh... Things would hardly be much different either way.
(no subject)
Date: 28/10/12 16:07 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 28/10/12 16:23 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 28/10/12 16:26 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 28/10/12 16:40 (UTC)He's basically dancing until they'll throw money, so the China thing is a dance move someone requested.
(no subject)
Date: 28/10/12 18:09 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 28/10/12 18:23 (UTC)I've been listening to investment strategists of late. Their near-universal condemnation of and apocalyptic contempt for Fed policy borders on astounding.
(no subject)
Date: 28/10/12 18:35 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 29/10/12 21:11 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 29/10/12 21:14 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 29/10/12 21:21 (UTC)The QE bucks do not bear interest. (I had forgotten which thread I was replying to. Sorry.)
However, they also remove bad debt (which should be allowed to go bad) and enter a bank vault, not the general economy. Therefore, the only way to circulate them is for someone to incur interest-bearing debt.
QE bucks are, therefore, not just like tits on a boar, but big honking stripper pig melons that bear only silicon and produce agitated and confused males, not to mention starving piglets.
(no subject)
Date: 29/10/12 07:14 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 28/10/12 20:10 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 28/10/12 20:07 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 28/10/12 20:22 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 29/10/12 05:09 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 28/10/12 20:09 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 28/10/12 20:24 (UTC)(An old DQ (http://talk-politics.livejournal.com/1104911.html?thread=88435215#t88435215))
(no subject)
Date: 29/10/12 05:43 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 28/10/12 21:02 (UTC)The Obama fans constantly repeat how Obama has withdrawn the US troops out of Iraq, but they're missing to mention that that was actually Bush's plan. Of course Bush got the US troops into all that mess in the first place, so...
No, I don't think anything would change so fundamentally, even if Joe the Plumber was president.
(no subject)
Date: 29/10/12 21:26 (UTC)Small change might just be safer.
(no subject)
Date: 30/10/12 00:04 (UTC)The people who targeted FDR and Hoover were also Leftists of that variety.
All the other attempts to kill Presidents that were made were made by various varieties of insane people, with Jackson, Lincoln, TR, Truman, Nixon, Ford, Carter, Reagan, H.W. Bush, Clinton, W. Bush, and so on were all targeted by schizophrenics or some other variety of mental illness, or in the case of Ford people connected to a religious cult intent on starting a race war. In no cases were Garfield, McKinley, or JFK opposed to the systems of their times. Actually Garfield *could* technically be said to be killed due to the status quo being threatened with change, but that's only if we ignore that his murder *was* the change.
(no subject)
Date: 30/10/12 01:10 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 30/10/12 01:54 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 28/10/12 21:29 (UTC)No it doesn't.
(no subject)
Date: 28/10/12 21:42 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 28/10/12 22:54 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 28/10/12 22:21 (UTC)They may disagree on abortion, gay marriage and lesbian priests but it's American 'home affairs' anyway.
However, on the foreign policy - whoever comes to take the oval office, he can't change much neither far around, nor in the house.
I only wish Matt to win and get his Noebel peace prize next morning.
Now, re the "Meanwhile, the growing list of challenges requiring America's active attention includes the global recession, the various Middle East conflicts, the change of power in China, and the growing tension around Iran's nuclear aspirations."
I guess, the list of challenges is set remarkably wrong. No such thing as global recession - BRICS are doing fine as well as many other countries, too. It is also true, there ARE conflicts in the ME and I'm afraid we're gonna see more coming, not less during the new term. It's not about British that screwed up the Palestine thing back in 40s - those people were slicing each other's throats open ear to ear for centuries, and, excuse me, they don't seem to have guts or brains or both to stop it. Next, change of power in China IS SAFE. Thank's God, they have Politbureau that gives the business the key to run the shop smoothly, they're PREDICTABLE!.I personally am reluctant about Iran's nuclear aspirations too, it looks more like a stick to annoy US. So, the list looks wrong to me, or - let me rephrase myself - it's a list of PERCIEVED challenges, not the real ones.
(no subject)
Date: 28/10/12 22:25 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 28/10/12 22:51 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 29/10/12 21:29 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 29/10/12 23:31 (UTC)http://outoftheoverflow.com/tag/lesbian-priest/
(no subject)
Date: 30/10/12 01:11 (UTC)Oh, and good for her.
(no subject)
Date: 30/10/12 08:03 (UTC)That makes two out of tens of thousands. Well done, I guess.
(no subject)
Date: 29/10/12 07:55 (UTC)The complex processes in the Middle East after the Arab spring, the violence in Syria, and Iran's aggressive pursuit of nukes, all require a new approach. The same is valid for Asia, which is emerging as the new center of global economic and geopolitical power.
The Romney team (http://www.thenation.com/article/167683/mitt-romneys-neocon-war-cabinet#) is basically comprised of Bush era neoconservatives. That will be more of the same wars!
(no subject)
Date: 29/10/12 21:33 (UTC)Why this hasn't been reported more is beyond me.
(no subject)
Date: 29/10/12 23:58 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 30/10/12 01:12 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 30/10/12 01:54 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 30/10/12 08:08 (UTC)Oh, keep hoping.