Over the weekend, I recorded a Bloggingheads episode
with Conor Friedersdorf; in the first segment we discuss Mitt
Romney’s performance on the first leg of his trip abroad, in the
UK, where the British press didn’t take kindly to his comments
about possible problems with the London Olympics. As I said to
Conor, Romney’s comments were arguably correct, but unwise. Brits,
like most groups of people (national, ethnic, or other), are
uncomfortable with criticism from outside the family, so to speak,
and the British press is always primed to magnify perceived discord
in the Special Relationship. This has tripped up President Obama
several times, and it was unfortunate that Romney couldn’t manage
to draw a contrast.
I predicted that the leg of the trip in Israel would go better,
and I was right. This was the most politically important leg of the
trip, for reasons
laid out beforehand by Walter Russell Mead (hint: it’s not
about the Jewish vote). As Noah Pollak
notes, Romney did succeed in drawing a contrast with Obama,
both on Iran and on the status of Jerusalem. On the latter topic,
much has been made of how US presidential candidates tend to hew
closer to the State Department’s neutral line on Jerusalem’s final
status once they’re elected, but that’s somewhat overstated. While
I wouldn’t count on a President Romney moving the embassy (there is
a lot of wiggle room in his
statement on this), I doubt that a Romney administration
would continue the Obama administration’s extreme, almost comical
fastidiousness about never acknowledging that Jerusalem is Israel’s
capital, which is in fact a departure from previous practice (see
J.E. Dyer and
Omri Ceren for extensive documentation on this point). Romney
is alleged to have committed a gaffe in his comments about the
relative merits of Israeli and Palestinian culture, but offending
the Palestinians isn’t like offending the British — it’s neither
substantively nor politically troubling. As John Podhoretz
puts it, “anyone who publicizes his remark is helping Romney
win the election. Even those who foolishly think they’re hurting
him.”
The third leg of the trip, in Poland, also went well; Romney
received a
warm welcome from Lech Walesa. Dave Weigel has a
fairly good backgrounder on the political significance
(although his juxtaposition of the unpopularity of Obama among the
Polish political class with the popularity of the United States
itself among the Polish public seems like something of a non
sequitur).
Jack in Wi| 7.31.12 @ 7:22PM
Romney is over his head on foreign policy. The country is sick of warmongers and he will be letting himself be seen as one. He will never get the votes of the young, women, and independent votes he needs to carry this election. The American people don't like warmongers. Wilson won as the peace candidate in 1916. Roosevelt ran as a man who would never send our sons to war in 1940. Truman and the Democrats were defeated in a landslide in 1952 in part because Eisenhower pledged to end the war in Korea. Johnson called Goldwater a warmonger not to be trusted and won in a huge landslide. Nixon won in 1968 because he said he had a plan to end the Vietnam war. He won a landslide in 1972 when he claimed to have ended the war. Old man Bush lost in a huge debacle in 1n 1992 and his war record did him no good. Bush Jr. ran as a man who wantd a more humble foreign policy. In 2008 Obama creamed the idiotic warmonger McCain. Now Romney is talking the same nonsense. It does not win elections.
Crassus| 8.1.12 @ 1:03PM
Yada, yada, yada. Go back to Canada, egg sucker. FDR won in 1944 by urging voters not to change horses in mid-stream. Reagan won two landslide elections by urging that there be no appeasement with the Soviet Union. Bush won in 2004 urging voters to stay the course in Iraq and Afghanistan. Your theory does not necessarily hold water but you knew that already. Sorry, Chester, but the Rube won't be the GOP nominee. It's Mittenz or Obummer. You'll vote for the latter and get what you deserve if he wins a second term.
And that's the name of that tune.