Is America Becoming Isolationist?

Maybe so.  Certainly both candidates have made clear their intentions to withdraw all troops from Afghanistan (they’re already out of Iraq) and to steer clear of Syrian involvement.

President Obama’s reluctance to get the US more involved in foreign affairs is well known.  (Think of “leading from the rear” in Libya.) 

But Governor Romney’s debate statements were a bit puzzling.  While the GOP nominee is not known as a foreign policy authority, he, nonetheless, has previously voiced support for a stronger military presence on the international scene than has his foe.

Of course, Gov. Romney may have simply adopted the attitude that would have the most appeal to undecided voters. 

But there may be more to it than that. 

Polls make clear that Americans across party lines are tired of our Middle East involvement.  Our efforts to help are seemingly received not only with ingratitude, but actual hostility.  And the fact that “allies” are killing our troops (“green on blue”) makes us understandably furious. 

Yet, as appealing as the urge to remove our forces from various outposts may be, it is best resisted. 

We will be less – not more – safe if we stand behind the walls of Fortress America.  That might have been a sound policy in 1912, with World War I looming.  Certainly, Woodrow Wilson’s plan to wage war (“to make the world safe for democracy’) didn’t exactly work out as planned. 

But in 2012, can we remove ourselves from such hot spots as Afghanistan and escape consequences? 

It is a cliché and undeniably true that nature abhors a vacuum.  We can expect our enemies to fill any space from which we depart. 

But the isolationist instinct is plainly embedded in our national character.  Europeans and others came to settle in America because they wanted to leave their world behind them. 

And so, after World War I was over, we retreated from world affairs.  And, of course, when it came time for World War II, we paid a severe price due to our lack of preparation. 

Evidently, here we go again.  Who will be our 1930s “Winston Churchill” warning us of the calamity ahead?

Comments on Debate #2

Yes, President Obama did much better in the second debate and Romney did less well.  But that was more a factor of the difference in the Democrat’s performance.  Romney remained solid but he suffered because he was not so much better than his opponent this time around.

*****

Who thought up the idea of uncommitted voters asking candidates questions?  Perhaps this is unfair, but it would seem that any voter undecided at this stage of the presidential campaign is suffering from self-imposed ignorance.  And the viewing public is supposed to expect intelligent questions from this group?

                                                       *****

The President’s strongest moment came when he took exception to Romney’s suggestion that the Administration had misled the American people as to the cause of the Benghazi attack which resulted in the deaths of our Libyan Ambassador and three other Americans.  His expression hardening and his eyes flashing anger, Obama said he found that claim “offensive”.

But why?  The Administration took two weeks to acknowledge that, indeed, the attack was by terrorists and was not generated by a YouTube Video mocking “the Prophet Mohammed”.  And yet, there had been clear evidence shortly after the 9/11 attack – intelligence to which the Administration clearly had access -  that undercut its public view.  (Remember that U.S. Ambassador Susan Rice devoted the following Sunday – five days after the attack – to talk show appearances repeating “the video caused it " line.

An easy answer is that the Obama team believed that concealing the truth would be in the best interests of the President’s re-election bid.  It would not be helpful, after all, to admit that our terrorist enemies were resurgent.  Wasn’t the death of Bin Laden supposed to signal the end of Al-Qaeda?

I think, however, that Obama was genuinely offended.  He believes what he says.  He’s not Bill Clinton.  As a committed ideologue and a great man in his own mind, he cannot admit to himself that any posture he takes is less than virtuous.  So if he does something, in his eyes it must be right.  Wouldn’t you be offended, too, if you had that self-appraisal and someone questioned the purity of your motive?  Looking back on the President’s statement “taking offense”,  it seem as if he was more offended at the idea of someone questioning his integrity than he was by the attack on our Consulate!

*****

The recent poll numbers have given increasing confidence to the view that Mitt Romney will be our next president.  But if such is not to be, I offer the following thought as solace:  Just think of 2013 and the mess Obama will be in as the result of the policies of his first term - it’ll be even bigger than the one he inherited four years ago!. 

 

 

 

 

 

A Canard Worth Refuting

President Obama, in the first debate and elsewhere, is fond of reciting a line with variations that go something like this:

          Gov. Romney, if elected, would return the country to the policies that got us into the mess we’re in.

          This position, blaming George W. Bush for the poor state of the economy since 2008 – and thus it is not Obama’s fault or responsibility – has well served the President’s political standing.

According to a recent poll, over three and a half years since President Bush left office, a majority of Americans blame him, not the incumbent – for our nation’s economic woes. 

But the majority is wrong – as any fair observer of the 2008 economic debacle would agree.

Sub-prime mortgages going bad in huge numbers (which were held by major financial institutions such as Lehman Brothers and Goldman-Sachs) started a domino effect which brought our economy to its knees.  But what were sub-prime mortgages and who sponsored them? 

Reckless Endangerment, a 2011 book written by a New York Times business reporter explains and points its finger directly at leading Democrats.  It is both an illuminating and depressing read.

Liberal Democratic representative Barney Frank was the leading Congressional catalyst for expanding home ownership in the U.S.  How would that be done?  People who met traditional – and time tested – lending standards could already get loans while those with financial situations that fell short of such requirements could not. 

So what to do?  Simple  Mandate that standards for prospective borrowers be lowered.  With both carrots and sticks, Congress and the Federal National Mortgage Insurance Company (Fannie Mae) brought life to the sub-prime mortgage industry.

Noteworthy is that major sub-prime players such as Fannie Mae and Goldman Sachs (all grossing billions in fees from such loans) were big contributors to the Democratic Party and Barack Obama. 

So why are we letting the Democrats get away with deflecting the blame for the nation’s economic woes from themselves and onto Bush? 

Poor George W.  He disappointed conservatives in many ways, but he doesn’t deserve this.

There is a far broader concern, too.  Governor Romney is placed on the defensive by the false allegations that Bush – a fellow Republican – helped cause the Great Recession.  It’s a lie.  Turn the tables.  Assign the blame where it properly belongs – on the Left.   That was the source for irresponsible economic policies that indeed put us in the mess we’re in.

Thoughts on the First Debate

Romney’s performance was impressive, stylistically. But to say he “won” the debate in a formal sense is probably not accurate.

An actual debate is a contest of opposing views or positions. Lawyers arguing before a judge or jury are debating. The winner is the side that prevails because it persuades the decision maker that its view is better or more correct than the opposition’s.

But political disputations are rarely like the Lincoln-Douglas debates of the late 1850s, nor was the joint appearance of President Obama and Mitt Romney last week.

To the extent that persuasion entered into any evaluation of Romney’s performance, it was in the sense that most viewers were convinced that he was self-assured, knowledgeable and enthusiastic, and certainly not the haughty, uncaring rich guy pictured in Obama’s commercials.

On policy, as distinct from character, matters, Romney was less impressive and more inoffensive. He refused to be drawn into the subtleties of his plans for Social Security and Medicare, for instance.

Although claiming, as he did, that these programs would not suffer under his watch is a politically understandable position, it does clash with the fiscal reality already upon us.

His Five Point Plan for improving the economy was appropriately general and, thus, attractive with no specificity to attack.

In sum, the GOP nominee did a good job, which for now is good enough.

                                                                        * * *

There is a consensus that Barack Obama is a fine, even great, public speaker. In a set-piece, teleprompter-aided presentation, I agree.

But he’s not particularly able or quick-witted when required to think on his feet. Listen to him carefully. He fumbles and fills pauses with sound (“uh” and “ah“). Polished speakers don’t do that; nervous and/or inexperienced speakers do.

Considering that the President is not inexperienced, his performance is surprising. He needs a speech coach.

                                                                        * * *

The near unanimity of the media in praising Romney’s performance was also surprising. So give them their due. They undoubtedly would have preferred a different outcome, but the liberal press, either from fear of embarrassment or even the presence of some integrity, did not deny the obvious.