Watching what was supposed to be the foreign policy debate on Friday, I was struck by how quickly the candidates flipped to speaking on economic or domestic issues. Foreign and domestic issues are competing for center stage in this election, and it is fairly clear that the economic side is winning out. What does the conflict between foreign and domestic issues in the public eye say about the state of the nation? About the candidates' views and strategies? How is the focus of the debate telling of the decisions to be made by the next president in the four years to come?
The simplest conclusion from the trumping of economic issues over foreign policy is that in times of economic hardship, domestic matters become more significant. Fewer people are concerned about what is happening in Syria when they are living from paycheck to paycheck. It is also simple to paint failures in foreign policy as reflective of a weak economic base at home, which Romney did multiple times throughout the night.
Obama has been hailed as a successful foreign policy president, despite his perceived ineffectiveness at managing the economy. This gave him an inherent advantage entering the debate, and allowed Romney very little ground to fight him on. Thus, when asked directly about foreign policy plans and actions, former Governor Romney often found himself agreeing with the President. Instead of disagreeing with Obama on foreign policy issues, the core of Romney's arguments rested on economic points and the idea that America needs to be strong at home in order to lead abroad. Skewing the debate to this focus was a smart move by Romney, as it brought the battle from Obama's home field to a place where Romney had more control.
The conflict in framing of this debate clearly reflects where we can expect each candidate to be most effective in the next four years, if he is elected president. Obama believes that working with the international community is crucial to America's growth, stating that we must continue to engage our allies to "start rebuilding America". However, while Obama may improve America's standing in the world of international relations, he may continue to be less effective at reviving the economy. Romney, on the other hand, seems more likely to focus on the economy, at the risk of putting foreign policy on the back burner. "For [America to lead]," he stated, "we have to strengthen our economy here at home". It will be up to America to decide the winner of this conflict for media attention.
http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/la-pn-2012-presidential-debate-20121022,0,7479154.story
Obama has been hailed as a successful foreign policy president, despite his perceived ineffectiveness at managing the economy. This gave him an inherent advantage entering the debate, and allowed Romney very little ground to fight him on. Thus, when asked directly about foreign policy plans and actions, former Governor Romney often found himself agreeing with the President. Instead of disagreeing with Obama on foreign policy issues, the core of Romney's arguments rested on economic points and the idea that America needs to be strong at home in order to lead abroad. Skewing the debate to this focus was a smart move by Romney, as it brought the battle from Obama's home field to a place where Romney had more control.
The conflict in framing of this debate clearly reflects where we can expect each candidate to be most effective in the next four years, if he is elected president. Obama believes that working with the international community is crucial to America's growth, stating that we must continue to engage our allies to "start rebuilding America". However, while Obama may improve America's standing in the world of international relations, he may continue to be less effective at reviving the economy. Romney, on the other hand, seems more likely to focus on the economy, at the risk of putting foreign policy on the back burner. "For [America to lead]," he stated, "we have to strengthen our economy here at home". It will be up to America to decide the winner of this conflict for media attention.
http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/la-pn-2012-presidential-debate-20121022,0,7479154.story
I totally agree. But is it fair for two men to decide what is truly relevant in today's world? I was frustrated to see both candidates deflect questions regarding foreign policy and revert to *their* strong suits. Rather, their job is to address the concerns of the people they will potentially be governing, not play into their own fortes.
ReplyDeleteI understand that in the dog-eat-dog political world, one must project their own self interests to survive. But that does not excuse the digression of policy. They need to tell voters what they NEED to hear, not what they WANT to hear.
I definitely agree with both you and Tim, and I think this kind of mentality refers back to America's lack of global citizenship and subtle exceptionalistic thinking. As much as the domestic front is exceedingly important, there's a reason why foreign policy is a separate debate. This is because we don't live in a unipolar society anymore. So, adhering to the exceptionalistic really only hurts us. It might seem at the forefront that focusing on our economy & domestic affairs will help us, but because so much of our economy is tied to the world that by acting as if nothing else matters, we are isolating ourselves and digging ourselves a deeper hole.
DeleteBut I guess the question becomes then, how do the candidates go around that?