Mitt Romney wrapped the most important speech of his life, for Thursday
night’s session of his convention, around an extraordinary reinvention
of history — that his party rallied behind President Obama when he won
in 2008, hoping that he would succeed. “That president was not the
choice of our party,” he said. “We are a good and generous people who
are united by so much more than divides us.”
The truth, rarely heard this week in Tampa, Fla., is that the
Republicans charted a course of denial and obstruction from the day Mr.
Obama was inaugurated, determined to deny him a second term by denying
him any achievement, no matter the cost to the economy or American
security — even if it meant holding the nation’s credit rating hostage
to a narrow partisan agenda.
Mr. Romney’s big speech,
delivered in a treacly tone with a strange misty smile on his face
suggesting he was always about to burst into tears, was of a piece with
the rest of the convention. Republicans have offered precious little of
substance but a lot of bromides (“A free world is a more peaceful
world!”) meant to convey profundity and take passive-aggressive digs at
President Obama. But no subjects have received less attention, or been
treated with less honesty, than foreign affairs and national security —
and Mr. Romney’s banal speech was no exception.
It’s easy to understand why the Republicans have steered clear of these
areas. While President Obama is vulnerable on some domestic issues, the
Republicans have no purchase on foreign and security policy. In a
television interview on Wednesday, Condoleezza Rice, the former
secretary of state, could not name an area in which Mr. Obama had failed
on foreign policy.
For decades, the Republicans were able to present themselves as the
tougher party on foreign and military policy. Mr. Obama has robbed them
of that by being aggressive on counterterrorism and by flexing military
and diplomatic muscle repeatedly and effectively.
Mitt Romney
has tried to sound tough, but it’s hard to see how he would act
differently from Mr. Obama except in ways that are scary — like
attacking Iran, or overspending on defense in ways that would not
provide extra safety but would hurt the economy.
Before Thursday night, the big foreign policy speeches were delivered by
Senator John McCain and Ms. Rice. Mr. McCain was specific on one thing:
Mr. Obama’s plan to start pulling out of Afghanistan at the end of 2014
is too rapid. While he does not speak for Mr. Romney, his other ideas
were unnerving, like suggesting that the United States should intervene
in Syria.
Mr. Romney reportedly considered Ms. Rice as a running mate, and she
seems to have real influence. But Ms. Rice is a reminder of the colossal
errors and deceptions of George W. Bush’s administration. She was a
central player in the decision to invade Iraq and the peddling of
fantasies about weapons of mass destruction. She barely mentioned Iraq in her speech
and spoke not at all about Afghanistan. She was particularly ludicrous
when she talked about keeping America strong at home so it could be
strong globally, since she was part of the team that fought two wars off
the books and entirely on borrowed money.
Ms. Rice said the United States has lost its “exceptionalism,” but she
never gave the slightest clue what she meant by that — a return to
President Bush’s policy of preventive and unnecessary war?
She and Mr. McCain both invoked the idea of “peace through strength,”
but one of the few concrete proposals Mr. Romney has made — spending 4
percent of G.D.P. on defense — would weaken the economy severely. Mr.
McCain was not telling the truth when he said Mr. Obama wants to cut
another $500 billion from military spending. That amount was imposed by
the Republicans as part of the extortion they demanded to raise the debt
ceiling.
Ms. Rice said American allies need to know where the United States
stands and that alliances are vitally important. But the truth is that
Mr. Obama has repaired those alliances and restored allies’ confidence
in America’s position after Mr. Bush and Ms. Rice spent years tearing
them apart and ruining America’s reputation in the world.
The one alliance on which there is real debate between Mr. Romney and
Mr. Obama is with Israel. But it is not, as Mr. Romney and his
supporters want Americans to believe, about whether Mr. Obama is a
supporter of Israel. Every modern president has been, including Mr.
Obama. Apart from outsourcing his policy to Prime Minister Benjamin
Netanyahu on settlements, it’s not clear what Mr. Romney would do differently.
But after watching the Republicans for three days in Florida, that comes as no surprise.
No comments:
Post a Comment