Does Obama Have a Foreign Policy Edge?

It is a fact of political life that the 2012 presidential election will not turn on foreign policy. Unless something terrible happens between now and November, the focus of most voters will remain on the country’s failing economy. That’s probably okay with Mitt Romney because, unlike most Republican nominees in recent decades, prowess in foreign policy and defense issues are not among his strengths. According to New York Times columnist David Brooks, Romney’s inability to delineate strong points of disagreement with President Obama’s policies is not only a sign of the GOP standard bearer’s weakness but an indication that the incumbent can go to the people claiming to be a success on foreign policy. Though Brooks is right to characterize Romney as having done an inadequate job of articulating his foreign policy vision, his praise for the president is undeserved.

0
Shares
Google+ Print

Does Obama Have a Foreign Policy Edge?

Must-Reads from Magazine

The Gun Debate Gets Worse and Worse

Podcast: Gun control and embassy politics.

The events of the past week following the mass shooting in Florida have only increased the divide in this country on the issue of guns—and pretty much everything else. This is what we talk about on the final podcast of the week. And we talk about whether Sheldon Adelson should pay for the U.S. embassy in Israel. Give a listen.

1
Shares
Google+ Print

The Russian Stooge Who Squeezed Russia

When the facts change, so should opinions.

In some progressive and Never-Trump circles, it is an article of faith that Vladimir Putin helped President Trump get elected in the hope that the New Yorker would tilt U.S. foreign policy toward Moscow. If that’s true, then the Russian strongman made a dreadful investment. Under Trump, Washington is doing far more to put pressure on Russia than it ever did under his “flexible” predecessor.

11
Shares
Google+ Print

Congress Doesn’t Want the Responsibility Anymore

A crisis of apathy.

The American republic owes its longevity to the uniqueness of its revolution. Unlike almost every subsequent revolution, that of the Founders was not motivated by an interest in perfecting mankind’s inherent flaws. Rather, they fashioned a government that saw humanity as it was—imperfect—and they sought to constrain its worst impulses. “Ambition must be made to counteract ambition,” read a prescient admonition in Federalist 51. “If men were angels, no government would be necessary.” The constitutional conventioneers, therefore, devised a system in which those who desire the accumulation of power would compete against other similarly motivated power centers. The Founders could not have envisioned the present circumstances. It seems that the most important branch of the federal government—the legislature—doesn’t much care for the responsibility of governing. Indeed, Congress appears eager to give their authority away.

19
Shares
Google+ Print

The New Old European Obsession

Some things never change.

Does Europe still want its Jews, and can the Jews still find belonging in Europe? Ask the likes of Angela Merkel, Emmanuel Macron, and European Commission chief Jean-Claude Juncker, and they will answer firmly and decisively in the affirmative. Yet their assurances ring hollow amid a resurgence of Europe’s old and unhealthy obsession with Jews.

60
Shares
Google+ Print

When Useful Idiots Were Useful

'Agents of influence' to my right, 'subconscious multiplicators' to my left.

Last week, Robert Mueller’s probe established with legal precision the methods Russian nationals used to sow chaos and dissension in 2016. Moscow’s efforts ranged from laughably silly to quite menacing; all of it amounted to an attack on American sovereignty. The precise effects of the Russian operation are still debatable, but whatever efficacy it enjoyed would have been impossible without the aid and support of Russia’s unwitting accomplices in the United States.

21
Shares
Google+ Print