Given that the two candidates are so similar on foreign policy, attitude becomes the critical difference.
USS Constitution Forever stamps
Barack Obama and Mitt Romney closely align on foreign policy. Both espouse defeating terrorism, bolstering burgeoning democratic societies, and protecting the homeland from attack. Their ideas for how to accomplish these goals differ, but the goals are the same.
When questions turned to China in last night’s debate, I was disappointed that neither candidate was willing to condemn China’s human rights abuses. Come on, people. China’s human rights violations have to be addressed if we are serious about requiring China to “play by the rules.” On Afghanistan, both candidates insisted on 2014 as a hard and fast departure date. We can only hope it will be that easy.
If both candidates are so similar on foreign policy, why do I lean toward Romney and away from Obama? It comes down to attitude—how each man has led or will lead our country at home and on the international stage.
Over the past four years, Obama has acted in ways that make me wonder if he even likes America, much less wants to secure us as a world power. There was the apology tour and bowing to foreign leaders (some Navy SEALs were particularly unhappy about that), talking about our own people as clinging to guns or religion, reluctance to definitively call the bloodshed at Fort Hood and in Libya terrorism, publicly snubbing Israel, and empathizing with our enemies while weakening ties with our allies.
It probably wasn’t Obama’s intention to offend half of the homeland. We can only assume he led in a way he thought was best. His timing, however, was all wrong. It’s not good to kick a country when it’s down, especially when your job is to lead that country to victory.
America isn’t in a good place at home. We struggle personally and collectively. The recession drags on. Our citizens are out of work and can’t find jobs. Our national debt threatens to bankrupt us. Our people are split on key social issues. Our Congress divides on nearly everything. We see our soldiers and diplomats killed at the hands of Islamic terrorism.
Who will stand up for us?
I expect our President to stand up for America. The President of the United States should be our loudest cheerleader. Publicly praising American exceptionalism isn’t arrogant or imperialistic; it’s an encouragement to the people to keep on keeping on. Calling those who attack us terrorists isn’t an insult; it’s speaking the truth borne out in their actions.
The debate last night was mostly chaotic, but I was relieved to hear Romney say things like:
I’m not going to wear rose-colored glasses when it comes to Russia, or Mr. Putin. And I’m certainly not going to say to him, I’ll give you more flexibility after the election. After the election, he’ll get more backbone.
We’ve got to strengthen our military long-term. We don’t know what the world is going to throw at us down the road.
We have to stand for our principles, stand for our allies, stand for a strong military, and stand for a stronger economy.
America has not dictated to other nations. We have freed other nations from dictators.
I’m tired of national uncertainty being our theme at home and wishy-washy political correctness being our song abroad. It’s time for an American comeback, and I want to know without a doubt our President is on our side.
Good last point there, Aimee. Those who do not want to cut the apron strings are those who do want their every need taken care of for them. Even so, I don’t think most of Americans, Republican or Democrat are looking for a father figure. But they are looking for someone who promotes what they value most. Those things just don’t always align within parties, never mind across party lines.
Lisen, I am not personally looking for someone who pounds his chest either. To me it is important to have a clear-headed leader that can make insightful, informed decisions, but who can also act decisively and promptly when it is necessary. The President’s number one concern, especially as Commander-in-Chief, should be the welfare and safety of his own citizens and military and not the feelings of his want-to-be allies. There is always time for diplomacy, but sometimes action is necessary.
I do not think that our current president has proven that he has the ability to act in what I view as the best interests of our Country. My reasons for thinking this are most likely concurrent with Aimee’s, what I read in his attitude. I feel a complete lack of concern for the American people exhibited in the president’s demeanor. His body language, his smirks, and his condescending attitude during the debates spoke volumes to me and other Americans, both Republican and Democrat. While a few people interpreted this as a strength, I think that most people saw it as a weakness. I didn’t see Romney pounding his chest, but I did witness Romney showing extreme control and agility. Good qualities.
Lisen, I am also lost as to why you paint the picture of a father figure as an ugly, undesirable thing. Could you enlighten your readers as to why you have chosen to do this? It seems to me that you can be both a feminist and value the presence of a father figure in society. I think when we demean either of the genders, we are demeaning humanity as a whole, since one cannot exist without the other. (Or are you saying that the president should not have the qualities of a good father? Because those qualities would spill over into any occupation that a good father had.)
I do believe that Governor Romney will be able to work in a bipartisan way for the best good of all Americans. I think he is a unifier, and I think that our Country needs to be unified. We have enough divisions without re-electing a divider. I believer Romney’s words in his closing address, “We need strong leadership. I’d like to be that leader, with your support. I’ll work with you. I’ll lead you in an open and honest way.”
Good points, Heidi. Thank you!
I find your comments interesting but at times a little confusing, course that could just be the blonde in me. For example: America has not dictated to other nations. Yet earlier you think we should be dictating to China on Human Rights also I think perhaps because we are in debt to China it may weaken our ability to tell them what is right or wrong, what to do and not do. In our current debt situation with China I am just happy they are not telling us what to do.
You know, Clare, you make a good point. The line about America not dictating to other nations was Mitt Romney’s from the debate. Sorry it was confusing.
As you have observed, we are in no position to hold China accountable for human rights violations since we are in debt to them. Even if we were on more equal ground with them debt-wise, I don’t think we can dictate to China or any country what to do. But we can refuse to trade with a country that abuses the rights of its own people, rights we hold dear in our Constitution.
Thank you for taking the time to read and comment!
Aimee,
I love that I don’t read your posts before I post mine. Your desire for a strong daddy figure is totally consistent with Lakoff’s model of the strict father. However, what you see as “wishy-washy political correctness” I see as nurturing the voices of other nations who have their own destinies and futures even if they are deeply entwined with ours.
You said it best when you said, “If both candidates are so similar on foreign policy, why do I lean toward Romney and away from Obama? It comes down to attitude—how each man has led or will lead our country at home and on the international stage.” I want a president who doesn’t go around scolding the world and being the big gorilla in the room pounding his chest. Sure, their policies sound the same, but when it comes to foreign policy, style is everything.
Lisen
Lisen, I don’t want another father. I want a strong leader. If half our country wanted a father, we’d be pushing for a king or dictator, not a president. And some of my conservative friends may say it is liberals who want for a father in the government to take care of all their needs. The metaphor can easily turn to fit either side. The best candidate, male or female, would be the one who is not too strong and not too weak, but just right. Hmm, maybe we should promote a fairytale metaphor next?