The trajectory of the U.S. presidential race did not change Monday
night. Not substantively, in a debate that featured Mitt Romney’s
constant endorsements of Barack Obama’s policies. (For instance, on the
question of aggressive drone strikes against suspected terrorists: “I
support that entirely and feel the President was right.”) And probably
not politically, given that foreign policy is a low priority for most
voters and that the debate lacked a breakthrough moment that will hound
one candidate or the other for days.
Whether tonight has some marginal difference depends on what you
think matters. Republicans argue, not implausibly, that Romney’s goal
was to sound presidential, versed in the issues and worthy of being
trusted with the nuclear football.
Unstated, but obvious from Romney’s almost John Lennon–like
performance, was his goal of refuting Obama’s charge that he wants to
start new wars and extend existing ones. Doing so — on Iran, Afghanistan
and Syria — forced Romney into constant agreement with Obama. But it
also enabled him to dodge the Dick Cheney Halloween mask that Obama
would love to pull over his face. “We don’t want another Iraq. We don’t want another Afghanistan,” Romney said.
(MORE: Obama, Romney Spar on Middle East Policy in Final Presidential Debate)
Romney may have passed that test, but he failed to indict Obama’s
policies or draw a clear contrast with his own. One reason was that
Obama enjoyed a structural advantage and used it well. He invoked his
almost mystical power as Commander in Chief — a rhetorical shortcut to
credibility on the military, terrorism and dramatic calls like the raid
to kill Osama bin Laden. Romney lacked any counter with remotely the
same punch.
Stylistically, Obama was also more often on the offensive — even if
he sometimes seemed to find his own zingers a mite cheesy. (“The 1980s
are now calling to ask for their foreign policy back,” a quip
in response to Romney’s view that Russia is our top geopolitical rival,
sounded like a tossed-off tweet and Obama knew it. Russia,
incidentally, really does cause us a lot of problems, mostly through its U.N. Security Council veto power.)
Huge swaths of ground went mostly or entirely uncovered: the nature
of the new Iraq. The wisdom of cutting a peace deal with the Taliban.
Nuclear nonproliferation. Africa, Europe, Latin America. Torture,
detention, surveillance, cybersecurity. Tellingly, the candidates
repeatedly veered into the thick of domestic politics and the economy — a
sign that both campaigns understand foreign policy won’t decide this
election. At one point it seemed possible that Obama was going to
trumpet Lilly Ledbetter, while Romney at one point declared, “I love
teachers!” And a question on China revolved around not Obama’s strategic
pivot to Asia, or Beijing’s dispute with Tokyo over a string of oil-rich islands, but trade law and the auto bailout (on which Mark Halperin is right to call
Romney’s answer “rambling, confusing, defensive.”) Translation: a duel
for voters in all-important Ohio. The world will have to wait on
Cuyahoga County.
Không có nhận xét nào:
Đăng nhận xét