Two ways of looking at Mitt Romney's foreign policy day -- part I

Posted By Daniel W. Drezner Friday, October 7, 2011 - 9:56 PM Share

Mitt Romney has spent the last day rolling out his approach to international relations. First his list of foreign policy advisors, then his backgrounders to important foreign policy reporters, then his speech at The Citadel, and finally his team's 43-page white paper.

There are two ways to think about Mitt Romney's foreign policy pronouncements. The first way is to understand the following joke:

Two campers are in the woods. In the morning, as they exit their tent, they see a bear rumbling into their campsite. One of the campers immediately starts putting on his shoes. The other camper turns to him and says, "Are you crazy? Even with your shoes, there's no way you can outrun that bear."

The first camper stands up with his shoes now on and says, "I don't have to outrun the bear. I just have to outrun you."

Compared to the other viable GOP candidates to date, Romney is the guy with his shoes on. Sure, he runs awkwardly, and I have little doubt that America's foreign policy challenges will quickly overwhelm him. Compared to Herman Cain or Rick Perry, however, he's a friggin' Olympic sprinter. Romney has had to think about foreign affairs for a while now, and while I might disagree with some of his musings, they're at least.... actual musings.

As for the other way... well... I'll get to hat one after I've ~~atoned for my sins~~ digested Romney's white paper sometime this weekend.

EXPLORE:U.S. FOREIGN POLICY, ELECTION 2012, MITT ROMNEY, 2012 CAMPAIGN, FOREIGN BRIBERY, UNITED STATES

(3)

HIDE COMMENTS LOGIN OR REGISTER REPORT ABUSE

JOHN THACKER

2:06 PM ET

October 9, 2011

But does it really matter

But does it really matter what a candidate says during the campaign about foreign policy? After GWB's debate comments about a humble foreign policy, and Obama's campaign promises, I'm not sure it really matters.

Herman Cain's musings were interesting, only because he briefly wandered off the reservation (seemingly genuinely shocked about al-Awlaki a few months ago, and seeming to think that the right of return wasn't controversial), but he's clearly been told by advisers and other policy hands to stick to the bipartisan consensus.

ZATHRAS

5:21 PM ET

October 9, 2011

Well, That's Nice

It's always fun to weigh in on implications of even minor events for campaign tactics and strategy, but Dan has more than one reader already conversant with that subject.

I'd be more interested to hear from him what he thinks of the policy implications of Romney's foreign policy address, and of the campaign advisers he has engaged to this point. Another FP blog (guess which one) proclaims these as a "ready to govern on Day 1"-type group of people. What this meant was a "ready to restore the Bush administration on Day 1" group of people, and I am curious what Dan thinks about that.

Specifically, given that the last Republican administration left the international position of the United States very much weaker than what it inherited, and given that Romney's advisers are retreads from that administration, do we not have a pretty good indication of the policy directions to which a Romney administration would be inclined? I mean besides never apologizing for the United States. I'd kind of like to know whether Romney means by that phrase never apologizing for the screw-up who preceeded Barack Obama in the White House.

MISTERTWIG

4:43 AM ET

October 10, 2011

With this talk about the one

With this talk about the one Republicans who stands out from the rest who have no idea about foreign policy, I find it interesting that Ron Paul is never mentioned. Maybe he doesn't have the best shot at winning the nomination, but he is consistent in his foreign policy views, and makes a good argument for what the ivory tower folk call a grand strategy of restraint. Whenever there is a post about him on FP.com, the comments are generally very negative, but here is a candidate promoting a strategy that I daresay Walt, Barry Posen, and a host of other respected IR scholars would fully endorse. Its surprising that he doesn't get more love from the foreign policy community.