Debate’s bluster masks similarity of world views
White House rivals aren’t far apart on foreign policy
BOCA RATON, FLA. – It didn’t take long for Barack Obama to telegraph his strategy for the third and final presidential debate.
After a 30-second opening summary of his accomplishments Monday night, the U.S. president turned to face his Republican rival Mitt Romney and said, “Governor Romney, I’m glad that you agree that we have been successful in going after al-Qaida, but I have to tell you that, you know, your strategy previously has been one that has been all over the map and is not designed to keep Americans safe or to build on the opportunities that exist in the Middle East.”
And so it went throughout the 90-minute foreignpolicy debate. Romney attempted to take the high road by coolly describing his policies and how he would fix a world endangered by “Muslim extremism” and Chinese cyber-attacks to keep America safe, while Obama returned to his polished attack strategy of painting Romney as a candidate who sets his policies according to the voter weather vane.
Within the framework of Monday’s debate, Obama’s attacks often seemed gratuitous. But in the context of his first debate – in Denver three weeks ago, where the roles were reversed and it was Romney who was the relentless aggressor – Obama clearly felt he had no choice. Looking presidential and calmly outlining past success and future policies in the first debate, while Romney freely beat up on him, had killed Obama’s momentum and had breathed new life into Romney’s campaign. Obama wasn’t going to let that happen again. He didn’t last week in Long Island, N.Y., and he didn’t in battleground Florida.
Three times Obama referenced Romney’s policies as being “all over the map.” And three times Romney replied that “attacking me is not talking about an agenda” – or variations thereof.
The Republicans knew what was coming and had sent in the heavyweights to disseminate the message that Obama was not acting presidential.
The Democrats, too, had their spin. For them Obama looked like a “commander in chief,” “decisive” and “strong.”
But judging purely on Monday’s debate, the two candidates weren’t that far apart on the fundamentals of maintaining peace and stability. Faced with Iran’s nuclear ventures, with terrorism in an unstable Muslim world, with a povertystricken, nuclear Pakistan and its extremist factions and terrorist incubation schools, and with the aggressive rise of China – all invoked the same policy approach from both candidates: diplomacy, diplomacy and diplomacy, backed by sanctions and a powerful military. Only a hairline crack separated them on methodology.