Shadow Government

The fundamentals of a Romney-Ryan foreign policy

Mitt Romney's choice of Paul Ryan for the VP slot has focused most attention on fiscal issues, in particular entitlement reform, and well it should. This election will be about the bad economy, the urgent need to restore economic growth and job creation, and the coming fiscal nightmare if we don't get our house in order.

But what of foreign policy? Some commenters have addressed it, most of them critics of the GOP ticket who have said that neither Romney nor Ryan has sufficient experience to manage it. They have also insisted that what Romney and Ryan have said recently demonstrates their inadequate understanding of statecraft.

It is no surprise that the ticket's defenders take exception to these criticisms and characterizations. As one of these defenders, my view of their fitness for commander-in-chief and commander-in-chief-in-waiting is based on what I perceive to be their principled views on the role of the United States and their understanding of the realities of the international arena. They are not running for secretary of state or defense or for national security adviser, nor are they trying to win an agency post like arms control czar or head of USAID. They seek the office that sets the tone, lays out the objectives, and staffs the agencies that formulate and implement policy. So what they believe fundamentally about foreign policy is the first thing to address if we wish to understand what kind of foreign policy leaders they would be. We can think about experience separately, understanding that they can't help having no more experience presiding over the most powerful nation-state in the world than have most contenders for the office, including President Obama. As Peter Feaver points out here, let's please not absurdly hold them to a higher standard than candidate Obama was held to four years ago. Once we understand their thinking, we can speculate with some confidence on the types of appointments and policies they will pursue and the objectives they will seek to fulfill. We already know that Governor Romney is a manager and leader of considerable skill; Congressman Ryan has been a chairman of a major committee in the Congress during a crisis when his leadership skills have been tested (and he passed), which is more than the current occupant of the White House could boast in 2008.

I do not claim to have much first-hand knowledge about Romney and Ryan's views, just as I did not about President Obama's views when he was a first-term senator with no experience other than his time in the Senate. I rely primarily on three things to make my assessment of them as I did for Obama: 1) what they have said and done that shows what they believe about the United States' role in the world; 2) what they believe about the world itself; and 3) how they have operated in it, whether in the public or private sector.

Governor Romney's speeches and comments since he has been running for president for several years reveal a leader committed to the notion of American exceptionalism. He asserts regularly that the United States must lead the world if we are to enjoy peace and stability and if freedom and prosperity are to expand. His comments imply that he knows that the world is a dangerous place, and that while pursuing the ideals of cooperation and collective defense is commendable, in many cases only force wielded by a free nation or coalition thereof can secure not only our interests but those embraced by all signatories to the U.N. Charter and the Declaration of Human Rights. We need not wonder what his foreign policy would be generally and so we can therefore extrapolate to the specifics of, say, arms control and the defense of the safety of our citizens and property. His appointments would comprise a coterie of officials who share his views. I imagine some combination of Reaganites and Bushites (both 41 and 43) would be called upon, and there is a lot more agreement among them on these things than disagreement. Plenty of them have the skill to man the posts in service of a President Romney's goals. To put a fine point on it, he has little experience running an energy or a farm policy, but I imagine he has some clear ideas about those things, too, and would set out goals and make appointments to attain them. That would be him exercising leadership, and for all he would draw upon his experience as a governor, a business leader and administrator of one of the world's largest global concerns, the Olympics.

Gov. Romney has also demonstrated some sound instincts. In this respect I'd like to address the recent controversy related to his recent visit to Israel. Gov. Romney said that Israel's strong economic performance relative to its Palestinian neighbors could be traced in part to cultural factors. For this he was called racist and naïve. But this is a perfectly rational comment and it underscores the main theme of my comments here about big ideas and broad principles. Romney did not say Palestinians were inferior biologically and unable to engage in commerce leading to prosperity; nor did he say they did not have ambition or a work ethic. He simply alluded to a fact that should be uncontroversial: the cultural factors animating the citizenry of the State of Israel (both Jew and Arab) are conducive to democracy and economic development. Israel's is a democratic government that protects civil rights and property rights. The same cannot be said about the Palestinian territories under both Hamas and Fatah rule. In each of those cases, whether the Arabs generally have a culture that is conducive to democracy and development -- and I believe they do -- is irrelevant when the culture of the leadership of both public and private sector elites tramples upon it. The fact is that those who have the ability to control society through state power, education, and religion use that power to retard development, enrich themselves through corruption, and do all with impunity. Palestinian Arabs in Israel and the world over practice politics as democrats and prosper; Palestinian Arabs living under the culture that Hamas, Fatah and their parasitical and corrupt clients have fostered do not. How is it racist or naïve to make this case? I think it shows that Romney gets what causes human flourishing; and getting that means he knows not only what he wants to do in terms of domestic policy but also what a fundamental pillar of his foreign policy would be. That is, the United States will be a promoter of individual liberty at home and be its champion everywhere and protector when it is in our interests.

Turning our attention to Congressman Ryan, he's had fewer chances so far to speak at length about foreign policy; his main focus as a member of Congress has been on the fiscal health of the United States. But those who know him argue that he approaches and understands foreign policy much the same way he does fiscal and domestic policy, that is, by means of principles he has imbibed from the American Founders. He starts first with, no surprise, that the United States is an exceptional nation because it is first an idea before it is a place. He has been saying this for several days now since Romney named him and it reflects what he has said as a congressman and it fits with his work at Empower America. He and Romney are perfectly compatible when it comes to what they believe about the United States and what they believe about the international arena. The only question that remains is are they intelligent enough to establish goals based on their principled beliefs and are they smart enough to choose the right people to help them devise and implement policy. I see no reason to believe that they are not, certainly no more reason than was the case with the former junior Senator from Illinois. The difference is the principles and goals, and for that, of course, I'm grateful.

Darren Hauck/Getty Images

Shadow Government

The incredible shrinking democratic critique

The Obama campaign has levied more than its fair share of bogus critiques of Governor Romney and the Republicans. Already in 2011, one of their favorite critiques won the dubious distinction of being Politifact’s “lie of the year.” Alas, the lie of year in 2011 has a chance of defending the title in 2012 what with the extreme response to Paul Ryan. And 2012 has seen a steady parade of charges, each more absurd than the last: Governor Romney is guilty of a felony, Governor Romney never paid taxes, Governor Romney causes people to die from cancer, Governor Romney hates puppies.

Yet, for my money, the charge that takes the greatest chutzpah for an Obama supporter to offer with a straight face is the claim that Governor Romney has insufficient experience and qualifications to be Commander-in-Chief. I might listen respectfully to someone who argued that Senator Obama was unqualified in 2008 and now in 2012 wants to say Governor Romney is unqualified, too. Perhaps someone like that exists and, if so, perhaps a reader could direct me thither.

But it takes a special kind of blinkered partisan to have touted the national security qualifications of the junior senator from Illinois (not quite through his first term in office) and now to question the preparedness of the former Governor of Massachusetts. And yet such blinkered partisanship abounds today, and even makes occasional appearances at FP.com. Consider two recent examples.

Exhibit A: Wes Clark claims, “[Romney] doesn't bring any real national security experience to the issues at hand. He doesn't have any foreign-policy experience. He has less foreign policy experience than Senator Obama had when he ran.” This is the kind of nonsense one expects to hear from a reality TV host, not from a serious observer of the national security challenges we face today. Oh, wait a minute…

Exhibit B: Michael Cohen blogs that Romney’s pick of Ryan shows that he neither understands nor cares about foreign policy. Cohen neatly elides over the obvious comparison with a delicious hand-wave -- “say what you will about Obama’s foreign-policy expertise when he ran for president in 2007 and 2008…” Yes, what about that expertise that seemed unimportant in 2008 when Obama was running against a war hero who had made national security policy a life-long focus, but should now be uppermost when Obama is facing Romney? Cohen’s answer is that Obama was right to oppose the Iraq war, which makes him vastly superior to everyone who supported it (people like Obama’s choice for VP, for instance, who, according to Cohen, brought foreign policy credibility to the ticket).

It is fair to critique Romney’s foreign policy platform. It is fair to critique Romney’s campaign-related foreign travel.

It is even fair to say that after 3-plus years of on-the-job training President Obama now has more national security experience than Governor Romney has. But it is self-discrediting to turn that observation into a resume-based claim that a candidate with Romney’s extensive executive experience in global business and politics somehow flunks the commander-in-chief test. If Obama supporters want to be taken seriously on national security, they need to make serious arguments. Claiming that then-Senator Obama was qualified whereas Governor Romney is not, is fundamentally unserious.

Wikimedia Commons