Romney Foreign Policy Watch: Wait and See

A lengthy discussion on what more we know (and don’t know) about Romney’s approach to foreign policy as seen through his advisors (all sides represented), his positions (less than other areas), and  his approach to diplomacy (an impressive number of study groups, a disastrous European trip, messaging problems, and John Bolton lurking in the shadows):

Those disputes have been shelved, at least until Nov. 7, advisers say. “ ‘After the election,’ that’s what they say in all the conference calls,” one member of the team said after trying, unsuccessfully, to argue for more specificity in one of Mr. Romney’s recent statements on the Middle East. He added, “They see little benefit in resuming the battles that preoccupied the Bush White House, at least for the next month.”

Two of Mr. Romney’s advisers said he did not seem to have the strong instincts that he has on economic issues; he resonates best, one said, to the concept of “projecting strength” and “restoring global economic growth.” But he has appeared unconcerned about the widely differing views within his own campaign about whether spreading American-style freedoms in the Middle East or simply managing, and limiting, the rise of Islamist governments should be a major goal.

via Romney Remains Vague on Foreign Policy Details – NYTimes.com.

Now conservative voices (“needs to persuade people that he’s not simply a George W. Bush”) are matching the more liberal NYT editorial board to call for a reveal on the Romney foreign policy, (“Americans deserve an intensive, textured and honest discussion on foreign policy”).

Advertisements
Tagged ,

6 thoughts on “Romney Foreign Policy Watch: Wait and See

  1. This is an interesting subject. With all the recent commotion about Romney’s view on foreign policies, I thought back to the 2012 London Olympics and how Romney was criticized for not having handled his relations there well. While I am an avid Romney supporter, I would like to see some clarity about his ideas. Suprsingly Obama and Romney have more in common on foreign policy than one might expect. This is discussed in the article below:
    http://globalpublicsquare.blogs.cnn.com/2012/10/08/how-different-are-romney-and-obamas-foreign-policies-really/?hpt=po_c2

  2. joshuacordon says:

    While foreign policy is a very big issue its not one of the top 3 issues of the campaign. There are far too many problems at home that we really shouldn’t focus much of our effort abroad. Personally I would like Romney to stick to what he knows best, the economy. That’s what we need him for. If we want to talk about his stance on foreign policy lets talk about who he will appoint to be his secretary of state. Then let that person represent Romney’s view on foreign policy. And sense that’s not certain until his is president (hopefully) then I think we shouldn’t worry about the issue. Possible Romney secretary of state list includes: Robert Zoellick, Robert Kagan, and John Bolton.

    http://www.theblaze.com/stories/the-final-candidates-for-a-possible-romney-cabinet-secretary-of-state-and-secretary-of-defense/

  3. jackie3clark says:

    @joshuacordon I thought the same thing! Why are we worried about Romney and foreign policy, when what we really need his help is our economy? One opposing viewpoint argues that foreign policy in a world of globalization is also a domestic economy issue. “…our domination of the world’s most trafficked waterways has permitted the flourishing of trade; and how exporting our principles of political and economic freedom has opened and nourished markets that buy American goods, employ American workers and allow Americans to enjoy an unmatched level of security.” Another interesting way to view the importance of foreign policy. I still think you bring up a good point. Even if Senator Romney clarified exactly what he would do in foreign policy, it would largely be determined by his Secretary of State.

    @Maria Carla Medina I think we would all like to see some clarity. The article below seconds your opinion.

    http://www.nytimes.com/2012/10/08/opinion/mitt-romneys-missing-foreign-policy.html

  4. Andy Miller says:

    I would argue that foreign policy issues play a very critical role in this and every presidential election, and certainly more so than economics. First, one could easily make the case that we have a very healthy economy, and there isn’t a real need for resuscitative reform; our GDP per capita is still very high, the national unemployment rate is at 8% (a three-year-low), and there has been a net creation of jobs in the last four years. Furthermore, Stephen J. Dubner, co-author of the widely-acclaimed books “Freakonomics” and “SuperFreakonomics”, was recently featured on NPR’s “Marketplace”, and made the very astute assessment that the President has very little control or influence over the economy (http://www.freakonomics.com/2012/03/08/it%E2%80%99s-not-the-president-stupid-a-new-marketplace-podcast/). Neither candidate could make things much better or worse than they are now. On the other hand, the President and his self-appointed Secretary of State are the faces of America to the world. The things they say and the policy direction they implement reflect our nation’s collective position, for better or worse, and this is even more critical in today’s unprecedentedly and increasingly globalized world. I look forward to hearing more concrete ideas from Governor Romney in the coming weeks, as this will have the greatest impact on our nation from a global standpoint.

  5. ctrmathias says:

    I have to assert that foreign policy is more important than ever in Presidential elections. Just as the European countries care about their neighbors (Germany and Greece’s relationship in particular), we have to understand that when there are problems in the world, they affect everyone in this globalized world. And when problems are not dealt with properly, they only get worse. I admire President Obama’s foreign policy. Americans as a hole seem to not respect foreign policy as much as they should, as if the world was not interconnected. There is no turning back from globalization at this point.
    For why foreign policy matters: http://www.policymic.com/articles/2405/why-foreign-policy-is-important-for-2012-election-cycle

    I also thank Andy Miller for pointing out that the President has little control over the economy. Presidents are often given too much credit or too much blame over the economy when there are in fact many factors, much more diverse than the Presidency can affect.

  6. codyknudsen says:

    I agree more with Andy here. Foreign policy is a very important part of this election cycle and it deserves to be. Although it’s hard to debate with the idea that the U.S. economy is not an important issue. However, foreign policy is more than just military policies. In this globalized world, the U.S. foreign policy will have a dramatic impact on the U.S. economy. China owns more U.S. public debt than American households. Other states with massive holdings include Japan, Brazil, the United Kingdom, Taiwan, and Hong Kong. Also, foreign policy includes the amount of money that we give to our allies, money that we are not using to better our own economy. All of this money adds up and contributes to the economic health of the country.
    http://usgovinfo.about.com/od/moneymatters/ss/How-Much-US-Debt-Does-China-Own.htm

Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: