Rick Perry inspires a new foreign policy award

Posted By Daniel W. Drezner Tuesday, August 30, 2011 - 9:46 PM Share

So I see Rick Perry gave a quasi-foreign policy speech at the Veterans of Foreign Wars 112th National Convention.  Here's the gist of the foreign policy section: 

[A]  president should never send our sons and daughters into war without a plan to win, and the resources to make that possible.

In the dangerous world we live in today, our enemies often don't wear a uniform or swear allegiance to a particular flag, but instead to an ideology of hatred.

As the tenth anniversary of the attacks of 9-11 approaches, we must renew our commitment to taking the fight to the enemy, wherever they are, before they strike at home.

I do not believe America should fall subject to a foreign policy of military adventurism.

We should only risk shedding American blood and spending American treasure when our vital interests are threatened.

And we should always look to build coalitions among the nations to protect the mutual interests of freedom-loving people.

It is not in our interests to go it alone. We respect our allies, and must always seek to engage them in military missions.

At the same time, we must be willing to act when it is time to act.

We cannot concede the moral authority of our nation to multi-lateral debating societies.

And when our interests are threatened, American soldiers should be led by American commanders.

I say this because we owe to them, and to their loved ones, to make sure any war we wage is led by the country with the most advanced military technology and the best training.

We have the finest fighting force the world has ever known.

We have a generation of heroes who love their nation, and who willingly sacrifice all that we may always be free.

The men and women of the United States Military are the greatest ambassadors of freedom this nation has ever sent abroad.

That's why, when we send them to war, we must give them every weapon and every resource to help them succeed.

James Lindsay analyzes the content over at CFR, concluding that, "There is something in it for every significant foreign policy constituency in the GOP," although "any mainstream Republican or Democratic presidential candidate could have given Perry’s speech."  This is likely because, "while Perry’s speech was heavy on foreign policy bromides it was short on specifics."

Lindsay is being kind -- this speech is ninety-eight percent concentrated pablum (contra Lindsay, the "multilateral debating society" crack does signal it being a GOP speech).  Seriously, I hereby challenge my friends at Shadow Government who might be Perry-friendly to find something of interest in this speech.  It's the foreign policy equivalent of this scene from The Distinguished Gentleman: 

 

Now, to be fair to Perry, this San Antonio News-Express news story suggests that he had some constraints on what kind of speech he could deliver.  So, really, I'm not sure that anything of consequence can be divined from this.... er.... assemblage of cliches that maybe, just maybe, passes the Turing Test. 

Still, what Perry said is such pure, unadulterated boilerplate that, as a foreign policy commentator, one must step back and gape in wonder.  Reading it, the absence of anything interesting kept nagging me as hauntingly familiar. 

And then I realized -- Rick Perry had just delivered the Wolf Blitzer of foreign policy speeches!!  It's familiar, yet utterly devoid of interesting content!! 

And for that, Rick Perry is the distinguished inaugural nominee of the Wolf Blitzer Award for Foreign Policy Boilerplate. 

EXPLORE:U.S. FOREIGN POLICY, FLASH POINTS, 2012 CAMPAIGN, AWARDS, FOREIGN POLICY, FOREIGN POLICY COMMUNITY
 

STEVEM

11:06 PM ET

August 30, 2011

Perry Joins the Vacuous GOP Club

Daniel, if you want an example of real GOP stupid and vacuous, here's the content from Mitt Romney's campaign "Issues" web page:

"The foundations of our nation’s strength are a love of liberty and a pioneering spirit of innovation and creativity. These values—inherited from our Founders and embodied by all who came to our shores seeking opportunity—have made the United States the most powerful nation in the history of the world. But today, under President Obama’s leadership, Washington is smothering these values at home and sapping our influence abroad. The federal government has grown too large. And President Obama has presided over one of the worst economies in modern history—millions of jobs have been lost, record numbers of Americans are in danger of losing their homes, and personal bankruptcies have skyrocketed. He has failed the American people.

"Mitt Romney believes in America. He believes that liberty, opportunity, and free enterprise have led to prosperity and strength before and will do so again. America, however, must take decisive action to roll back the misguided policies of the last three years, empower our citizens, and restore the foundations of our nation’s strength."

That dreck and a buck sixty-five will get you cup of coffee.

 

COMETLINEAR

5:15 AM ET

August 31, 2011

Obama will beat Romney in the general by 85 electoral votes

The GOP has become a southern regional party.

There are practically no registered republicans under 30.

The only demographic group which consistently votes republican is old white males. And that won't win you an election. The GOP is still nowhere near recovered from G.Bush's presidency.

Wait until 2016 for a real contender to possibly emerge.

 

MOMMADONA

11:10 PM ET

August 30, 2011

Rick Perry and That Foreign Policy

As governor of Texas, Rick Perry holds a basically ceremonial role ~ since turned into a den of cronies tied to his ample apron strings...

Well, here, I'll let song and dance explain Perry: http://youtu.be/NJG75FJkjr8

 

ZATHRAS

4:33 AM ET

August 31, 2011

Mynah Bird Politics

I think the point is that this is a statement that could have been written by any Republican electioneering hand with experience writing speeches on national security.

There are lots of these people, spread amongst all the various GOP Presidential campaigns, with the probable exception of Ron Paul's. Seriously, no one could script Ron Paul: "...because we're over there, and we're out of money, and we're going in, and the Fed, and the TSA is another one...have we lost our minds?" But the whole point of modern Presidential campaign politics is to maintain message discipline, which is easiest if the message is both simple and familiar. You sell car insurance and light beer the same way, except there seems to be some room for humor where those products are concerned. In modern campaign politics, it is safer to express the same brief thoughts over and over, like a mynah bird.

Dan knows what the Shadow Government stable would say. Peter Feaver would note the troubling lack of appreciation in Perry's remarks for the great achievements of the Bush administration: the surge, the valiant allies, the spread of American financial innovation throughout the globe, and so forth. That Cardenas fellow would ask why Perry didn't denounce Castro. Kori Schake would remind us that there are threats everywhere, and express relief that Perry doesn't seem to be thinking in terms of cutting the defense budget. John Hannah would ask why Perry isn't explicit about wanting to bomb some country with which Israel is currently at odds. Most of the others would say nothing that might damage their chances of serving in a Perry administration. This would limit them to insinuations that President Obama does not believe in the eternal truth of one or more of Perry's platitudes. They would pronounce this possibility "troubling."

What I would like to hear from Perry is a speech about a subject to which he himself has devoted so much thought and care that no campaign speechwriter could write it for him: a subject that commands his passion and unwavering commitment, and distinguishes him from every other Republican candidate for President. I would like to hear Perry give a speech about his hair.

 

COMETLINEAR

5:16 AM ET

August 31, 2011

Let's just admit it

The biggest qualification in national politics is good hair.

 

HAZEL

7:33 PM ET

August 31, 2011

Mynah Bird Politics

Governor Perry, despite having no understanding of economics, business or national security affairs, does know how to charm any audience. Whether he's speaking today to those of the Obama-hating neo-con sort like the Shadow Government crowd or as he did in the past to the Texans for Gore; as Bill Clinton said, Perry is a handsome rascal. Yet, without a doubt Perry understands the Republican zeitgeist and will do very well in their primaries and the Shadow Government crew will be climbing over each other to hitch themselves to his wagon.

 

ZATHRAS

8:17 PM ET

August 31, 2011

The H Word

Good hair is a plus in national politics, no question. It's not decisive, though, by any means, otherwise John Edwards would be President now. He had better hair than any Democrat in my adult lifetime.

But Rick Perry's hair is in a class by itself. He's obviously devoted more thought and passion to it than he has to, say, foreign policy. He can speak to his hair without having to have some campaign operative write out a boilerplate statement, which is one reason I suggested he do a hair speech. I am all about authenticity in politicians.

But I also think the American people have a right to know that someone running for President is playing within the rules. You didn't have to be a physician, looking at Mark McGwire or Hulk Hogan in their respective primes, to suspect that there was some enhancement going on, and I think we ought to get confirmation that Perry is not using human hair growth hormone (HHGH), keratin supplements or follicular steroids to give him an unfair advantage in the Republican primaries.

I'm not so interested in whether he's a heavy user of Just for Men, because that is a legal product. Some claim it has mild hallucinogenic properties, which would explain the "scientists inventing global warming to get research money" charge Perry made the other day. But I don't believe this, and think it would be utterly irresponsible to raise this possibility in public.

 

COMETLINEAR

5:11 AM ET

August 31, 2011

I just found out that Perry was a Democrat until 1989

This may not be significant for any reason, but it's still sort of interesting.

Also, Romney is the only mainstream candidate in the race.

 

FDA

2:30 AM ET

September 2, 2011

yretw

look love—[[ w w w - (wholesalecheapclothes )- c o m ]]
good
love

 

CARSON

5:48 AM ET

September 29, 2011

John Hannah would ask why

John Hannah would ask why Perry isn't explicit about wanting to bomb some country with which Israel is currently at odds. Most of the others would say nothing that might damage their chances of serving in a Perry administration. This would limit them to insinuations easy home projects that President Obama does not believe in the eternal truth of one or more of Perry's platitudes.

 

Daniel W. Drezner is professor of international politics at the Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy at Tufts University.

Read More