One of the most firmly
established conventions in American politics states that the
presidential race is won on the basis of economic considerations
directly related to the financial well being and standard of living of
the citizen, as well as how trustworthy the candidate is in relation to
his economic policy.
Former presidents Jimmy
Carter, who lost the race in 1980, and George H. W. Bush, who was
beaten in 1992, were kicked out of office amid severe economic crises
accompanied by the public's feeling of profound insecurity regarding
Washington's ability to navigate the economy to more solid ground.
And here we are now,
despite this basic convention, the second televised presidential debate
of this race between President Barack Obama and Republican candidate
Mitt Romney is to focus on foreign affairs and security policies.
The reason this debate
is arousing such public interest is not only because Romney's impressive
showing in the first round (as opposed to the president's apathetic and
disconnected conduct) dramatically altered the entire nature of the
race and placed him in a promising position, but also because Romney
changed the discourse on these issues into a sort of public referendum
about Obama's ability to lead.
The president has been
pushed into a defensive posture, precisely in the arena where the White
House enjoys the most significant and long-standing advantage in the
polls. This is especially so since the terror attack on the U.S.
Consulate in Benghazi forced Obama to explain and justify his moves on
the strategic and diplomatic fronts, moves which allegedly indicate the
accelerated decline of the era of American hegemony under his
leadership.
The increased momentum
that the former Massachusetts governor now enjoys as a result of his
surprising success in Denver has spilled over, therefore, into the
foreign affairs and defense arenas. Thus, following long weeks of
failures and stumbles, Romney has learned to use the Democrats' own
weapon against them. He is doing so by presenting entirely moderate and
conventional social and economic positions (which are light years away
from the uncompromising ideologies held by the conservative Right),
while integrating specific questions of diplomacy and defense and tying
them to the wider issues, which inherently touch on the 44th president's
ability to lead the American people and the entire international
community.
The administration's
foreign affairs conduct has shifted, in the public's eyes, from a source
of wide internal support to another Achilles heel for the White House.
The intensifying criticism over intelligence failures and the inadequate
deployment on the eve of the Benghazi attack quickly became just
another layer in the mass of disturbing questions about the nature and
soundness of American strategy on Afghanistan, Iraq and of course Iran
In this regard the vice
presidential debate served to amplify the dilemma over the president's
leadership. Despite Republican vice presidential candidate Paul Ryan's
specialties lying completely in general economics, and in the budgetary
realm specifically, during the debate he was able to display impressive
knowledge on a wide and varied range of topics about foreign affairs and
defense. All of Vice President Joe Biden's efforts to divert the matter
of America's apparent decline from the agenda were for naught.
In light of his troubles in the
polls, Tuesday night's second presidential debate has become Obama's
last window of opportunity to rehabilitate his status as a leader. The
president will strive to erase the impression from the last debate, but
any attempt on his part to excessively display decisiveness and
toughness could backfire into actually being perceived as inauthentic,
opportunistic and weak.
No comments:
Post a Comment