Romney a Statesman in His Foreign Policy Speech
In a comment on a Ricochet thread on Romney’s debate performance, I said, “I think Americans were waiting to see if Romney would get off the talking points and show authenticity, statesmanship and spunk – And he did!”
Romney’s foreign policy speech today showed the same statesmanship and spunk. He took a stand against the administration’s interpretation and handling of events in Libya - but quickly elevated his speech by painting a broader picture. Said he,
[And] I have come here today to offer a larger perspective on these tragic recent events - and to share with you, and all Americans, my vision for a freer, more prosperous, and more peaceful world.
Romney’s "vision" centered around his case for renewed American moral and strategic leadership in the world.
Oh how desperately we need moral and strategic leadership. Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton have embraced a foreign policy approach that is as unprincipled as it is unwise. Since they refashioned U.S. policy, the United States has expended more effort in pursuing good relations with dictators and dictatorships than in strengthening ties with democracies young and old, and encouraging and disseminating ideas of freedom. Instead of increasing America’s global stature as promised, they have spurned the very passion for liberty that makes America’s stature important and have given up the very strategic advantage that undergirds it. The result of de-emphasizing American power and American ideals is a more hostile, more oppressive world.
It was thus a relief to hear Romney state,
We cannot support our friends and defeat our enemies in the Middle East when our words are not backed up by deeds, when our defense spending is being arbitrarily and deeply cut, when we have no trade agenda to speak of, and the perception of our strategy is not one of partnership, but of passivity.
He reassured those that fear that taking a stand in the world means going to war by referencing the Cold War, which was indeed “cold,” but which we won brilliantly through the strategy of “containment.”
Given the way the Obama team sat idle in face of some of the most catastrophic human rights atrocities ever, it was also a great relief when Romney spoke up for human rights and for the “30,000 men, women, and children massacred by the Assad regime over the past twenty months.” He implicitly sided with those of us who insist that individual rights are human rights (innate, God-given and universal) and who believe that indifference to human rights is unacceptable and un-American.
Romney defended American exceptionalism, which the Obama team views as so yesterday. Said he,
We helped our friends to build and sustain free societies and free markets. We defended our friends, and ourselves, from our common enemies. We led. … This is what makes America exceptional: It is not just the character of our country—it is the record of our accomplishments. America has a proud history of strong, confident, principled global leadership—a history that has been written by patriots of both parties. That is America at its best.
It has been said that the Romney campaign has not drawn clear enough lines or given us a clear enough choice. Those lines are being drawn, and we are faced with a choice.
Photograph: Charles Dharapak/AP
- Comment (49)
- · Quote
- · UnfollowFollow (2)
Comments:
Apr '12
Re: Romney a Statesman in His Foreign Policy Speech
It seems that Romney actually grasps, to a greater degree, global realities rather than wishful thinking based on ideological assumptions.
But then it would be hard to match Obama's ineffectiveness: showing our soft underbelly to enemies while humiliating our allies.
Yet, I think Romney possess good sense, enough to be a real statesman.
May '11
Re: Romney a Statesman in His Foreign Policy Speech
At The Rubicon
Richard Fulmer
Does the United States have a moral responsibility to respond to atrocities committed in foreign countries if our national interest is not involved? · 2 hours ago
In my opinion, No. · 0 minutes ago
In my opinion yes, if you include the caveats of having the will to succeed, an understanding of what success looks like and a strategy for withdrawal after victory.
May '11
Re: Romney a Statesman in His Foreign Policy Speech
Southern Pessimist
At The Rubicon
Richard Fulmer
Does the United States have a moral responsibility to respond to atrocities committed in foreign countries if our national interest is not involved? · 2 hours ago
In my opinion, No. · 0 minutes ago
In my opinion yes, if you include the caveats of having the will to succeed, an understanding of what success looks like and a strategy for withdrawal after victory. · 0 minutes ago
It is analagous to the broken window theory of community police protection.
Apr '11
Re: Romney a Statesman in His Foreign Policy Speech
I just read the text and had a little thrill going up my leg!
Re: Romney a Statesman in His Foreign Policy Speech
Ha!
Jun '12
Re: Romney a Statesman in His Foreign Policy Speech
At The Rubicon
Richard Fulmer
Does the United States have a moral responsibility to respond to atrocities committed in foreign countries if our national interest is not involved? · 2 hours ago
In my opinion, No. · 4 hours ago
Agree. But US business relations are everywhere. So the definition of national interest becomes very tricky.
Edited on October 9, 2012 at 5:58amApr '11
Re: Romney a Statesman in His Foreign Policy Speech
If you read Romney's book, No Apologies, you'll find, in chapters 1, 3, and 4 that he is extremely, almost repetitively, aware of those analogies and strongly agrees with you.
Apr '11
Re: Romney a Statesman in His Foreign Policy Speech
liberal jim
Anne Pierce, Guest Contributor
liberal jim
Anne Pierce, Guest Contributor
But, there is concrete evidence, although no one would know, since the media has bought Clinton's line -which is an after the fact defense of her inaction and indifference. I'll send along a few of the references I accessed for my research on Syria - when I get back to my office (where those references are) tomorrow! · 5 minutes ago
You have concrete evidence that there were no jihadists involved? I doubt if such evidence could exist. But there is now and Mitt says he will only arm the good guys. You might want to explain how he is going to do that.
The GOP has gotten better. Syria has weapons of mass destruction and he is not talking about invading. I guess Mitt decided the Bush BS couldn't be sold twice.
You mischaracterize her statement and yours. She said that it was originally a group of democracy advocates, not that there were no bad apples. There is evidence of her claim.
Re: Romney a Statesman in His Foreign Policy Speech
***For those interested in the Syria discussion and in the questions as to the composition of Syria's resistance movement, I recommend taking a look at my post on Ricochet last week on the subject. I also recommend the following books: The Lion's Den by Andrew Toblin and The Arab Uprisings by James L. Gelvin. Finally, I recommend doing a search for the work on Syria by the following journalists/authors: Fouad Ajami, Victor Davis Hanson, James H. Anderson, Matthew RJ Brodsky, Frida Ghitis, Charles Krauthammer, Josh Gerstein, Kori Schake.
It is heartbreaking to recall how early protestors sent secreted videos to America crying out for moral support - assuming we would care about the atrocities being inflicted on their families and the bombings of their villages. Now most of those brave souls are dead, missing, injured. Most heartbreaking of all: Suffer the children.