Reflections on the Lynn U. Presidential Debate

The last debate between President Barack Obama and Governor Mitt Romney was in many ways anti-climactic. Some reports suggested the Romney decided to play it safe, in part because he is now ahead in many polls and catching up with the incumbent chief executive in key swing states like Colorado and Ohio. Obama has abandoned North Carolina and may soon leave Virginia, two Southern states that he won by wide margins in 2008.

The third debate lacked the passion of the second. Without a doubt, Romney won the first, came out swinging in the second, but then in the third winded down into some bogged policies of bloated bureaucracy, spending without cuts, followed by frequent approval for President Obama’s foreign policy.

Two telling phrases from Barack Obama included: “Someone ought tell the Governor that we no longer use horses or bayonets.” Obama’s one voucher for efficiency instead of spending should not be ignored when it comes to military spending.

“The 1980’s called, they want their foreign policy back!” This taunt bore little relevance. Romney has not framed his foreign policy on stymieing Russia’s autocratic influence. Still, sanctions alone will not deter a fanatical Iran.

Governor Romney rightly established that this country cannot kill its way to peace and stability in the Middle East. The radical Islamist agenda of the Muslim Brotherhood, coupled with incessant anti-Jew, anti-Israeli propaganda in Palestine is damaging to our standing and stability in the Middle East.  Yet what can we do about it? The United States State Department can safeguard our personnel and our national interests in the region, but Pan-Arabism is giving way to Islamic Radicalism, with militant fanatics gaining power in Tunisia and Egypt, and Al-Qaeda is rising slowly in the ranks.

The tribal dynamics across the Middle East are beyond our control. Frustrated by the world-wide Great Recession and economic and political stagnation, a rising generation of tech-savvy Arab youth are restless for opportunity, yet no legacy of liberal democracy. The old order of American pragmatism has ended. Neither candidate would admit it, but letting Syria’s civil war play out may be the only option, for A post-Assad Syria will succumb to the same cancerous Islamo-fascism spreading  across the region.

Romney’s most noteworthy comment had nothing to do with foreign policy, but our nation’s domestic education policy: “I don’t want the federal government getting deeper into education.” Finally, a presidential candidate outlined the unrelenting failure of federal intrusion. Too bad that President Obama cannot parade his successes on education – waivers for No Child Left Behind and “Race to the Top”: state competition for federal funds based on reforms  -- without offending one core supporter: the teachers unions.

Yet for all his pleading for less federal government in education, Romney promised many times  to rescind the Congressional sequester of one trillion dollars in order to beef up our military, with no concrete cuts to offset the spending. This country lacks a plan for financial austerity, including necessary reductions to our armed forces. Neither candidate mentioned closing military bases spread over one hundred countries. Neither candidate offered to stop wasteful humanitarian aid which “blesses” our allies and our enemies. Central Asian ally and recipient of American foreign aid, Pakistan defines “frenemy”, harboring Osama bin Laden, incarcerating the doctor who helped lead to his death, and refusing to stem the tide of Taliban operatives flowing into Afghanistan. Why are they still getting aid?

Afghanistan! When will we have a chief executive who does not shy away from getting our troops out of that Graveyard of Empires? No presidential contender can claim any seriousness or respect without an immediate draw-down from that nation. The United States of American cannot hold down every tribal conflict around the globe. Whatever efforts our armed forces have accomplished in the region, what can our diplomatic corps expect to accomplish in a failed nation-state torn about by virulent tribal rivalries and controlled by a junta of corruption in Kabul?

On a more promising note, both candidates attacked our country’s fractious relationship with China. The rampant intellectual piracy and counterfeiting that our Asian frenemy perpetrates against us cannot continue, but what can our leaders do if they refuse to deal dutifully without our nation’s growing dependence on foreign creditors, like China? Since sequestration has been taken off the table, and tax cuts are all the rage, how does Romney plan on cutting the spending and bringing down the national debt?

I cannot say that I miss Ron Paul – his foreign policy was wise domestically, but absolutely naïve in regards to Iran – but a serious discussion about our country’s limitations in military, diplomacy, and finance needed more attention and pledges than prospective voters heard last night.

I still support Romney. I agree that President Obama has conducted an apology tour coupled with hopes and dreams which have faded in the face of fanatical regimes who refuse to recognize the right of Israel ( or us!) to exist. As for spending, a dedicated Tea Party caucus coupled with stalwart liberals must hold the next President accountable. As Admiral Mullen declared, debt is our greatest threat.