American Politics: Mitt's American century

By Tom Switzer

Until now, foreign policy has not figured much in the Republican presidential contest. But with Mitt Romney setting the pace and tone, it is certain that it will do so before long.

As it happens, the most coherent statement of Romney's views was aired ten days ago.

Speaking at the Citadel, a South Carolina military college, on October 7, the leading Republican candidate called for a new “American century” and set out a muscular agenda for promoting US interests abroad.

“This century must be an American century,” Romney said. “In an American century, America leads the free world and the free world leads the entire world. God did not create this country to be a nation of followers. America is not destined to be one of several equally balanced global powers. America must lead the world, or someone else will. Without American leadership, without clarity of American purpose and resolve, the world becomes a far more dangerous place, and liberty and prosperity would surely be among the first casualties.”

“This is America’s moment,” Romney said. “We should embrace the challenge, not shrink from it, not crawl into an isolationist shell, not wave the white flag of surrender, nor give in to those who assert that America’s time has passed. That’s utter nonsense. An eloquently justified surrender of world leadership is still surrender. I will not surrender America’s role in the world. This is very simple: If you do not want America to be the strongest nation on Earth, I’m not your president. You have that president today.”

One of Romney’s foreign policy advisers is Robert Kagan, and it seems clear to me that the long-time Weekly Standard contributing editor’s fingerprints are all over Romney’s address, especially when the Republican candidate insists that the US should assume a global but benevolent leadership in world affairs.

The sensibilities of the realists among us set aside for the moment, there is much in the Romney view of American foreign policy that will make many American liberals feel very uneasy. It will make them uneasy not because it conflicts sharply with what they believe, but because in many ways it is so similar, so close to their views.

On both American exceptionalism and global leadership, many liberals also strongly believe that America has a special mission to redeem the world.

You may recall Madeleine Albright’s remark in the 1990s that “if we have to use force, it is because we are America; we are the indispensable nation. We stand tall and we see further than other countries into the future”.

Less well known is Hillary Clinton’s more recent remark that “We do believe there are no limits on what is possible or what can be achieved ... For the United States, global leadership is both a responsibility and an unparalleled opportunity.”

On the notions of American exceptionalism and global leadership, Romney, Clinton, Albright, and indeed, George W. Bush, are at one.

But one need not be an isolationist to have serious doubts about the willingness of the American people to sustain the level of engagement that Romney, Clinton, and others vigorously advocate.

After all, many of the goals used to justify the extravagant commitment of resources and prestige are neither sensible nor sustainable, especially at a time of 9 per cent unemployment, skyrocketing debt and a military stretched to breaking point.

Romney’s speech also raises the basic question of ends and means. He strongly supports a global leadership role, and he adamantly opposes defence spending cuts, but he also claims to be a fiscal conservative who is keen to reduce the size of government.

It’s surely imprudent to desire the end without being prepared to provide the means. A disjunction between ambition and resources is highly dangerous in terms of Americans blood and treasure.

Indeed, a strong case can be made that anything resembling an intrusive and heavy-handed foreign policy requires a strong federal government with sweeping powers.

Yet the lesson of the recent brush with debt default is that Capitol Hill will need to assign very high priority to downsizing government and cutting spending. An ambitious and interventionist foreign policy is surely incompatible with that goal.

Don’t be surprised if other Republican presidential candidates, most notably Romney’s main rivals Herman Cain and Rick Perry, start talking a different language about American foreign policy, one that stresses more prudence and discrimination in the world.

17 October 2011