|

Romney’s foreign policy would simplistically divide the world into friends and foes of America

 

Forever posturing as one tough dude, Mitt Romney naively sees the world in terms of black and white, friends and enemies, good guys and bad guys — and never the twain shall meet.

Daniel Larison, writing in The American Conservative, SAYS Romney’s appoach to foreign policy emulates the worst of George W. Bush’s impulses:

Romney’s weakness on foreign policy reflects the larger Republican predicament on foreign policy, which stems from the party’s failure to acknowledge fully the Bush administration’s failures and the related unwillingness to move away from the thinking that led to them…

[J]udging from Romney’s campaign statements to date the lesson that he and his advisers have learned from the last decade was that Bush was insufficiently aggressive. Bush dangerously stoked tensions with Iran and consistently made the wrong choices on Russia policy, but Romney sometimes speaks even more recklessly than Bush. Even though he did almost everything possible to make relations with Russia worse, Bush paid lip service to desiring Russian cooperation on certain issues. Romney doesn’t seem to think cooperation with Russia (or China) is possible or desirable. So far, Romney appears to favor a return to Bush era foreign policy, but with less tact and respect for the interests of other states.

(Snip)

Romney’s criticisms suggest that he thinks one of Obama’s greatest mistakes is pursuing cooperation with states that don’t fall simply into categories of friend or foe. It’s as if he thinks it is wrong to try to advance U.S. interests through cooperation with another state unless the other state is entirely and always on “our” side. That doesn’t leave many states with which to cooperate.

Share:

5 Comments

  1. Jim Hefner

    Unlike what the POTUS has done to this country – no other POTUS has succeeded as Obama has in creating a divisive USA.

  2. Jim Hefner: Your ignorance of American history is as bad as your vocabulary. (You blame Obama for “creating a divisive USA.” The word you want is “divided,” not “divisive.”)

    You’re apparently too young or too poorly educated to know about the divisions in America during the presidencies of Lyndon Johnson and Richard Nixon. We had rioting in the streets in those days. We had a huge generation gap. We had deep divisions over the war in Vietnam. We had upheavals in virtually every institution in American society — business, education, religion, etc. We had a rising counterculture. We had the rise of a new feminism. There was discord everywhere.

    Despite polls showing great controversy over political matters these days, the divisions in America today are much less deep and troubling than those of the late ’60s and early ’70s.

    Moreover, it’s ridiculous to blame Obama for the rise of nutty Obamaphobia (of which you are a perfect example).

    By the way, the average of the six most recent national polls (including the Fox News poll) shows that more Americans approve of Obama’s job performance than disapprove. In other words, you pathological Obamaphobes are outnumbered. But I’m sure you’ll persist in your divisive ways. (That last sentence is an example of how to use the word “divisive” correctly. You might want to make a note of that.)

    I eagerly await your lame response to all of this.

  3. Jim Hefner

    Once again you show your immaturity with a personal attack on me rather than my opinion. Your father should have taught you if you don’t saying anything no one will know how smart you are. Your ignorance is only surpased by your arogance:

    di·vi·sive
       [dih-vahy-siv] Show IPA

    adjective
    1. forming or expressing division or distribution.

    2. creating dissension or discord.

    The latest poll indicates that less than 50% approve of Obama – but you like play on words as does Obama.

    The divisions during the Johnson administration were more about Vietnam and Civil Rights issues which he inherited. Obama has manufactured issues to create as you like to call it a “divided” America.

    By the way, divided is not the correct word.

    di·vid·ed
       [dih-vahy-did] Show IPA

    adjective
    1. separated; separate.
    2. shared; apportioned.
    3.(of a leaf) cut into distinct portions by incisions extending to the midrib or base.

  4. Jim Hefner

    arogance = arrogance

  5. Poor Jimmy! Such a pathetic little Obamaphobe!

    And you still don’t understand that you wanted the word “divided,” not “divisive,” in characterizing the USA.

    To say that the USA is “divisive” is to say that our country promotes divisions. You’ve applied the adjective “divisive” to the country, not to Obama. What you wanted to say, quite obviously, is that Obama has been “creating a DIVIDED USA.”

    I don’t know where you went to school, Jimmy, but you should sue them for educational malpractice.

    Oh, and you’ve still failed to respond to my little history lesson about divisions in America during the presidencies of Johnson and Nixon.

    I hope you’ll get back to us on that matter.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

CAPTCHA Image

*

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>