Daniel Larison advises Republicans against attacking Obama on foreign-policy grounds:
Despite the endless inane attacks from the GOP, most of the public approves of Obama’s handling of foreign policy and a plurality approves of his handling of various national security issues. This is the wrong place for Republicans attack him. It is clearly on fiscal and economic policy where they may be able to gain a significant advantage, and this is kind of policy argument for which Romney is well-suited. Instead he wastes his time and makes a fool of himself discussing a subject he doesn’t seem to understand very well.
Larison is right to point out that Obama’s foreign policy doesn’t give the GOP much of an opening. A lot of hawks will really, really want to attack Obama on these grounds, but there’s no reason to think that the American people are anything but supportive of Obama’s broadly realist approach. That said, I don’t think Larison has realized what kind of attack is happening here.* When Romney hits Obama for saying something “on Arabic TV,” we’re no longer simply talking about foreign policy; we’ve leaped into the realm of cultural and identity politics. The suggestion is not that Obama is merely weak or pandering a la John Kerry. Romney is trying out the theme being developed in pieces like the Lowry-Ponnuru essay on exceptionalism: However sensible Obama’s policies may be, he is not a real American. He’s a European, or a Muslim, maybe both.
In a post-9/11 world, foreign policy issues have the same explosive cultural resonance that law-and-order issues once did. The next generation of Willie Horton ads won’t be about prisons and parole; they’ll be about national security. Democrats, and pundits, would do well to take notice.
*I still agree with Larison that Romney is ill-suited to such an attack. It’s hard to portray your opponent as alien when you seem like you were beamed in from outer space.
i guess the question is how many people will be sucked in by this , even by republican standards, sleazy stupid pile of BS. Obama seems to be able to handle this kind of crap well and only wingnuts seem to be buying it. Obama is talented at , you know, appearing like an actual American.Report
I hope you’re right, but as someone who is invested in a smarter, more effective, and more principled conservatism, I also hope that there is no further chance for its effectiveness to be proved.Report
This is slightly off-topic, but I’m seeking the opinion of “someone who is invested in a smarter, more effective, and more principled conservatism,” I wonder if you’d comment on this Politico story.
I know Dems also pander to the worst in their base, (millions will die without health-care reform, anything GWB, evil corporations, TBTF, etc.) but this seems a new low.Report
Political operatives in the future will look at this document and chuckle. If anything, it’s a record of a quaint, disappearing time in American politics when individual donors, large and small, had to be manipulated and catered to. Those fundraisers will be glad for the relative ease of post-McCain Feingold era. All the have to do is extort corporate contributions with regulatory and legislative threats and promises. But I wonder if they won’t miss the human interest of a life spent flattering cranks and pandering to paranoia.Report
That’s some bright future. Reminds me of “Neuromancer.”
One can only hope the freelancers of the future will have enough attachment to a company for some small bit of political representation.
Thank you.Report
Maybe this is just the most honest assessment of fundrasing that some have seen. I worked for a major university’s medical school development office and we did the same, stroked folks egos and passed out crap to get them to fund a room or building in their name.Report
The GOP will use it until it has repeatedly failed to get them gains. Their base loves it, major monied factions (the neocon war industry) supports it, the press will eat it up, and it does seem to have worked.Report