Insignificant Speech: Romney's New Course for the Middle East
Mitt Romney's recent Wall Street Journal op-ed on his vision for America's course in the Middle East is most notable as an example of what the philosopher Thomas Hobbes called "insignificant speech." Hobbes was criticizing those that "speak such words as, when put together, have in them no signification at all . . . ."
Ideas have consequences. Experience demonstrates that empty rhetoric is not conducive to the formulation of prudent policy serving just ends. It is enough to consider George Bush's Freedom Agenda. President Bush claimed to have advanced freedom and peace around the world; a look at the Middle East, North Africa, and Southwest Asia demonstrates the delusional character of that claim. The idea that Afghanistan was an "emerging democracy" in 2008 (or 2012 for that matter) is an excellent example of insignificant speech.
Romney's op-ed is certainly not all bad. The best part is his depressing but accurate description of the stupid and feckless policies of the Obama administration. His basic point is that our current policy in the region is drifting along with events. Our lackluster economic recovery, a military threatened by significant budget cuts, and the misapplication and misapprehension of American values lead to greater insecurity. Romney rightly notes that "President Obama has heightened the prospect of conflict and instability."
Romney should be applauded for pointing out the obvious facts the mainstream media has consistently refused to acknowledge. Unfortunately the good news ends there. The rest of Romney's position has no intelligible meaning.
For instance, we are told that the Arab Spring was "an opportunity to help move millions of people from oppression to freedom." Obama supposedly lacked a "strategy for success."
The reader is not given any specifics about what Romney thinks a "strategy for success" looks like; the closest thing to a plan is an admonition for America to use "the full spectrum of . . . soft power to encourage liberty and opportunity" to aid those who have "known only corruption and oppression."
What use of "soft power" or any other strategy would transform Egypt into a society where respect for human equality and the inalienable natural rights of all is the dominant opinion? Is it possible that if George Washington had been in office he would have been able to formulate a policy that would make the Egyptian people elect a Democrat like Jefferson or a Republican like Coolidge rather than the Muslim Brotherhood's Morsi? Of course it doesn't seem as if there is an Egyptian Jefferson or Coolidge to elect in the first place. How soft power is going to rectify this situation is a mystery. The use of abstract jargon like "soft power" is an indication that no cogent, concrete thought is to be found in the vicinity.
Romney also says that it is urgent that a "coherent policy of supporting our partners in the Middle East" is necessary. By "partners" he means governments and individuals that "share our values." The example he provides is Israel. I cannot imagine that Romney could name another partner in the region that shares our values. Who would it be--"allies" such as Saudi Arabia, Libya, or Iraq?
Common sense does show that Israel is the only country in the region that shares our values. Israel is our ally. It is the only decently governed country in the area; this is especially evident when we contrast Israel with American installed or encouraged regimes in Libya, Egypt, Iraq, and Afghanistan. But Romney's criticism of Obama and his understanding of what our political relations with Israel should be are nonsensical. Obama is criticized for placing "daylight" between America and Israel; Romney says there should be "no daylight between the United States and Israel."
We can understand Romney to mean that there should be "no daylight" between America and Israel concerning Iran rather than cynically supposing that he means there should be unanimity between the two nations on all issues pertaining to the Middle East. But this position is still unclear and unreasonable. Does Romney mean that the United States and Israel should always agree in public? If there should be a difference of opinion in private, should America always follow Israel, or should Israel always follow America? Is it obvious that there is no possibility of a reasonable, good faith difference between the interests of the United States and Israel relating to Iran under any circumstances? Could "no daylight" mean that America expects Israel to do what the current American administration thinks best?
Washington advised against this type of "political connection." He understood that nations cannot share the same "primary interests." Freedom of action or independence is essential to a sound foreign policy; it allows a nation to decide how best to secure the rights of its citizens under the laws of nature and nature's God. Romney's "no daylight" is the "political connection" condemned by Washington.
I assume that Romney is too sensible to mean what he actually says in this instance. It is more likely that he and his advisors are thinking abstractly. The problem is that abstract thought, disconnected from reality, could lead to greater instability and insecurity--the same defects Romney rightly criticizes in Obama's foreign policy.
We have followed plans based on "insignificant speech" for the last eleven years in the Middle East. We need to demand more than blather about "freedom agendas," "new beginnings," and "no daylight" from our policymakers. Romney can see that our current foreign policy is a mess. He needs to move beyond vapid phrases to the articulation of a policy that secures American rights while respecting the equal rights of other nations. And Romney would do well to remember Lincoln's admonition that the great danger to America is not foreign attack. If liberty dies in America, it will be by suicide, not foreign terrorism.
Empty phrases and abstract jargon will only lead to an increase in the instability and insecurity that Romney rightly attacks in his op-ed. It will also help cause a further erosion of liberty at home. A lack of clarity about principles and policies or means and ends is a chief cause of the drift toward greater insecurity and instability in the Middle East.
- Comment (53)
- · Quote
- · UnfollowFollow (7)
Comments:
Mar '11
Re: Insignificant Speech: Romney's New Course for the Middle East
How interesting that you should defend Hobbes.
Re: Insignificant Speech: Romney's New Course for the Middle East
Hi Mimi,
Leadership toward what end? Of course we need a strong military--but what does that mean? A 400 ship Navy? Does it entail spending vast sums of money on a huge mosque at the Marine base at Quantico?
I agree that Romney looks a lot better on the economic front, and that is a key element of national strength and defense.
Strong relationships with allies are good--but Romney hasn't said what that actually means in the instances he is discussing.
Mimi:
I don't think the above statement is vapid. Clearly, leadership is about strengthening our relationship with our allies so any enemy will be certain where we stand. Our military will not be laid off so that other entitlement programsmight be pursued (the left sees the military as an entitlement program). Our economic strength would include a push towards energy independence, but including available fossil fuels. Romney has stated this elsewhere. For me, these statements are not empty. · 2 hours ago
Edited 2 hours ago
Jul '11
Re: Insignificant Speech: Romney's New Course for the Middle East
Romney is running for president of the United States. If you want specific foreign policy proscriptions before the election you are in the wrong country bud.
Re: Insignificant Speech: Romney's New Course for the Middle East
Hi Crow's Nest,
I am not a Hobbist, and I seriously doubt Robert Lux is either. But Hobbes had a lot of wisdom. His account of what it means to think clearly is invaluable.
JG
Crow's Nest
How interesting that you should defend Hobbes. · 1 minute ago
May '12
Re: Insignificant Speech: Romney's New Course for the Middle East
I am honestly not certain how to react to that editorial. Romney did come out with a stronger response and sooner after events in Cairo and Benghazi.
He is also inclined to be cautious. He may be reading up heavily about foreign policy right now, and what I read may be part of his learning process. It is too early to say that he will be unprepared come January.
It must be said, he did not say anything in that essay that gives cause to expect him to be the disappointment Obama has been.
As to what "soft power" means, it depends whose hand is inside the velvet glove. Romney proved to be as ruthless as he had to be at Bain Capital.
Mar '11
Re: Insignificant Speech: Romney's New Course for the Middle East
John: I'm being more than a little playful there. I suspect the three of us may share a particular view of Hobbes, but I cannot know because I have never spoken face to face with either of you.
In any event, we might disagree in our deep and underlying evaluations of what it is to think clearly, but I cannot address that question here. Suffice it to say that I do think he is a thinker worth considering.
Nevertheless, ironically (I think we should have a more assertive FP and you think we should have a more cautious one) we happen to agree that Romney's WSJ article is devoid of serious substance on some of these issues. But it is unclear as to whether that is the result of the vicissitudes of campaigning or of a deep incoherence or misunderstanding in his thought.
Knowing who some of his foreign policy advisors are, I tend toward the former explanation (though, I admit, the latter is not ruled out).
Re: Insignificant Speech: Romney's New Course for the Middle East
Hi Anne,
I don't think there was such a widespread consensus about the world being "on a trajectory toward more democracy and more freedom" when BHO and HRC took over. There was a widespread consensus among Western intellectuals and politicians.
You mention Turkey--David Goldman has pointed to the demographic changes which made the perpetuation of a secular regime next to impossible. Nothing BHO and HRC could do would fundamentally alter that situation.
There is a longing for political freedom in the Arab world: what we usually fail to see is that freedom there generally means the freedom to elect Hamas, the Muslim Brotherhood, or the local equivalent.
Freedom in the new Libya means the legalization of polygamy, which was banned under the despot Gaddafi.
Anne Pierce, Guest Contributor
The world was, by all accounts, on a trajectory toward more democracy and more freedom when Obama and Clinton took over. . . . Instead of nourishing this promising environment, in which democracy movements were simmering everywhere . . . Obama and Clinton announced that they wanted to negotiate with the likes of Iran and North Korea without preconditions. . . . · 2 hours ago
Edited 2 hours ago
May '10
Re: Insignificant Speech: Romney's New Course for the Middle East
Wat?
The Arab Spring presented an opportunity to help move millions of people from oppression to freedom. But it also presented grave risks. We needed a strategy for success, but the president offered none.
...
It means placing no daylight between the United States and Israel. And it means using the full spectrum of our soft power to encourage liberty and opportunity for those who have for too long known only corruption and oppression. The dignity of work and the ability to steer the course of their lives are the best alternatives to extremism.
But this Middle East policy will be undermined unless we restore the three sinews of our influence: our economic strength, our military strength and the strength of our values. That will require a very different set of policies from those President Obama is pursuing.
How is that insignificant? Obama turned his back on the Green Revolution, released his Facebook and Google+ keyboard warriors to overthrow a stable Egypt, kicked out an already-neutered Gaddafi, and has now commanded soldiers to not engage enemy targets at night so Afghanis can sleep undisturbed by rifle fire.
Any speech in opposition to Obama policy is significant.
Re: Insignificant Speech: Romney's New Course for the Middle East
John Grant: Hi Anne,
I don't think there was such a widespread consensus about the world being "on a trajectory toward more democracy and more freedom" when BHO and HRC took over.
38 minutes ag
In Iran, Egypt, Syria, Eastern Europe, China and on and on, populations were restless and wanted either to secure recently won freedoms or to find them. The Arab Human Development Reports reveal a people as a whole longing for a better life and longing for more economic freedom. But Iran/Islamists have infiltrated every movement, making the situation unbelievably complicated. Take Egypt: With all the machinations, I don't think the current govt. represents the majority's will, but there are way more Brotherhood followers than there were before. Part of this is because so many Egyptian workers went to Saudi Arabia to find desperately needed work, and returned converted. Partly also due to the propaganda machine -radio, television, charismatic preachers, etc. that outside extremists employ in Mideast countries, while Obama admin. shut down voice of America type programs - a big mistake. An even bigger mistake for the admin. to encourage the Egyptian Brotherhood -before elections!
Edited on October 6, 2012 at 10:48pmRe: Insignificant Speech: Romney's New Course for the Middle East
My Hillsdale colleague Tom West emailed me the following comment, which I am posting in two parts.
Crow's Nest" writes, "I think we should have a more assertive FP and you [John Grant] think we should have a more cautious one."
I (Tom West) think this is one of the areas of greatest contemporary misunderstanding. Washington, John Quincy Adams, and Lincoln had an assertive foreign policy, but assertive where it counts (national defense). Caution is always appropriate (look before you leap), but if caution means absence of vigor in national defense, it is not caution but stupidity.
Many young Americans join the armed services to defend their country. People who call for an "assertive" foreign policy are happy to send these young people to die in foreign lands for causes that have nothing to do with national defense (Somalia, Bosnia, Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, and soon perhaps Syria). I had no objection when American forces overthrew the governments of Afghanistan in 2001 and Iraq in 2003. It rightly punished those who were aiding the Islamic terrorists who were trying to kill us. That was a decade ago. Yet we are still there, "assertively."
Re: Insignificant Speech: Romney's New Course for the Middle East
West comment part 2.
Most of the same people who call for "assertiveness" in foreign policy, against people who are mostly not our enemies, say and do nothing about the massive invasion of American territory by millions of poor people of below-average intelligence whose spokesmen demand and get free bilingual education for their children, food stamps, medical care, Section 8 housing, and the right to take jobs away from Americans. Their offspring have become a huge block of reliably Democratic voters, as would be expected of people who come from countries that operate by crony capitalism, bribes, corruption, and client-patron relationships. Adding injury to injury, the government mandates racial discrimination against non-minority Americans who compete with the children of these immigrants in the job market.
I don't call those two policies (nation-building and subsidized massive immigration) assertive or sensible. I call them immoral and suicidal. They are the de facto policies of both leading political parties today and of all major politicians, with very few exceptions.
Apr '12
Re: Insignificant Speech: Romney's New Course for the Middle East
America reminds me of Britain in the middle of the last century. The Brits had overspent themselves and were owned by the Americans. They had the memory of their WWII bravery and the remnants of their great navy and airforce. They still had not shut down their Empire and had not said a whisper of the moths being all that were in their money vaults to their diplomats scattered around the world.
The Suez canal was their first yank at the collar by their owner, the Americans. When they withdrew from Africa, they were out of cash. The Americans told them where to leave, Rhodesia being one such place.
The British people did not understand this complete collapse and they still have delusions if you caught any of Cameron's speech to the UN where he wants to hand out money to the "poor nations". That reminds me of Donald Trump who was approached by a beggar, and he thought "that guy is at least not owing a billion dollars to banks who want his blood."
Each young British citizen newly born owes a fortune. So does each new born American.
Edited on October 6, 2012 at 11:55pmApr '12
Re: Insignificant Speech: Romney's New Course for the Middle East
The most significant signal for Romney's foreign policy is his comment on Big Bird who we all now know is the biggest money spinner, and the public servant who runs that show makes a million dollars a year, a lot more than President Obama.
His comments on energy sources also reveals his foreign policy - focus on relationships with countries like Canada with needed resources.
Private equity has to be ruthless or the company runs out of cash, like the body running out of blood. Critical resources, like oil, are Romney's priority. Remember, Ryan is a numbers wonk and Romney now knows the US financial and cash situation.
Romney will build and open the spigot to a foreign ally, Canada. Our oil is a huge plus for making America independent of the Middle East. It will also mean Canada will give its limited supply mostly to the US, otherwise it is going to China. It really is an either /or situation and the Canadians do not enjoy Chinese business.
America is nearly bankrupt. Romney knows his allies. He has made it clear he is all about getting your engine going again -- business and that does not mean GE.
Re: Insignificant Speech: Romney's New Course for the Middle East
Hi Anne,
I agree that the Obama administration has committed blunder after blunder.
I am sorry to say that I cannot agree that there is any kind of significant movement for democracy in the Middle East. The vast majority of people in the Middle East have no desire to respect the equal natural rights of all human beings (e.g. the right to religious liberty).
Essentially tribal societies (cf. Pryce-Jones The Closed Circle) where Islam is the dominant religion are not fertile ground for the rule of law and respect for equal rights.
The messes in Afghanistan and Libya are examples of the bi-partisan character of this problem. It is not exclusive to Obama/HRC.
Anne Pierce, Guest Contributor
In Iran, Egypt, Syria, Eastern Europe, China and on and on, populations were restless and wanted either to secure recently won freedoms or to find them. . . . But Iran/Islamists have infiltrated every movement, making the situation unbelievably complicated. Take Egypt: With all the machinations, I don't think the current govt. represents the majority's will, but there are way more Brotherhood followers than there were before. . . . ! · 1 hour ago
Edited 1 hour ago
Oct '12
Re: Insignificant Speech: Romney's New Course for the Middle East
Somewhere in this thread it needs to be said that the idea -- that just because people are Muslim they prefer repressive government to government that allows their families to stay safe and allows them economic opportunity -- is absurd. See Anne Pierce's post 47 on Foreign Policy Mythology Part II to bring this point home.
Re: Insignificant Speech: Romney's New Course for the Middle East
Hi Cal,
So you are sure that supporting the "Green Revolution" would have been a good idea? And what does that mean exactly? Should we have armed them or encouraged them on the radio, or both?
What Republicans opposed the Libyan intervention? Romney endorsed the removal of Gaddafi.
And things in Afghanistan were better under Bush? The rules of engagement were awfully strict under GB too. My special favorite was investigating our attack helicopter pilots every time they engaged their guns in Iraq. How is Obama different from Bush?
Has Romney pledged to let American forces fight to win in Afghanistan by removing idiotic rules of engagement? No, he has not.
Romney hasn't said anything substantive about what he will do differently from Obama in terms of foreign policy.
Cal Lawton: Wat?
How is that insignificant? Obama turned his back on the Green Revolution, released his Facebook and Google+ keyboard warriors to overthrow a stable Egypt, kicked out an already-neutered Gaddafi, and has now commanded soldiers to not engage enemy targets at night so Afghanis can sleep undisturbed by rifle fire.
Any speech in opposition to Obama policy is significant. · 1 hour ago
Apr '12
Re: Insignificant Speech: Romney's New Course for the Middle East
John Grant: West comment part 2.
Most of the same people who call for "assertiveness" in foreign policy, against people who are mostly not our enemies, say and do nothing about the massive invasion of American territory by millions of poor people of below-average intelligence whose spokesmen demand and get free bilingual education for their children, food stamps, medical care, Section 8 housing, and the right to take jobs away from Americans. Their offspring have become a huge block of reliably Democratic voters. Adding injury to injury, the government mandates racial discrimination against non-minority Americans who compete with the children of these immigrants in the job market.
I don't call those two policies (nation-building and subsidized massive immigration) assertive or sensible. I call them immoral and suicidal. · 54 minutes ago
This is the new foreign policy.
Canada has been working hard on this very situation. If you want to work and have significant skills, great. The govt. takes business owners to Ireland to hire mechanics, etc, on fast work visas. They go to South Africa to get docs and mining experts.
Romney will want those who work and are family oriented and they vote conservative.
Re: Insignificant Speech: Romney's New Course for the Middle East
Hamilton called "experience" the "least fallible guide of human opinions."
What example does human history or experience provide of genuinely free government in the Muslim world? Citing data culled from UN documents on opinion polls isn't as convincing as 1400 years of experience, at least to me.
Apr '12
Re: Insignificant Speech: Romney's New Course for the Middle East
John Grant. Absolutely, Romney has said something very, very different from Obama. Foreign relations with key resource countries - Canada.
Apr '12
Re: Insignificant Speech: Romney's New Course for the Middle East
John Grant: Hamilton called "experience" the "least fallible guide of human opinions."
What example does human history or experience provide of genuinely free government in the Muslim world? Citing data culled from UN documents on opinion polls isn't as convincing as 1400 years of experience, at least to me.
· 0 minutes ago
There is a study by Geert Hofstede of countries who are collective versus individualistic And well worth understanding in detail. Other country populations have significant group characteristics.
The US is the most individualistic country. It is bred into your population by your Founders and is incredibly unique characteristic. It is the secret sauce of entrepreneurs. There was a recent post about Steve Jobs whose biological father was Syrian. If Steve had been raised in Syria, we would not have Pixar or Apple.
"Collective" country populations, like Japan or Mexico, let the group decide.
Catholic countries have distinctive group attitudes.
Muslims have their groupthink too.