You are here: Home

Style over substance in US presidential race

: 0 Comment(s)Print E-mail Beijing Review, November 1, 2012

Adjust font size:

?Most political pundits agree that President Barack Obama on October 22 won the third and final U.S. presidential debate, but few suggest that the victory was very meaningful. With just days to go before the November election, Obama and his rival, Republican candidate Mitt Romney, seem unable to move voter polls more than a few percentage points and remain in a dead heat. The debate may have had little impact on voters, but it did offer the world a look at what U.S. foreign policy would likely be over the next four years and what to expect for a drawdown of military action in the Middle East, heightening tensions over Iran and trade battles with China.

A U.S. soldier keeps watch during a ceremony to transfer a prison to Afghan authorities at the U.S. airbase in Bagram, north of Kabul, on September 10 [Xinhua]

Despite the vicious political rhetoric that has characterized the 2012 election campaign, both candidates seemed to agree on a wide range of foreign policy issues. Obama accused Romney of seeking to "do the same things we do but say them louder." Romney repeatedly blamed escalating crises around the world on the failures of the Obama administration, but offered essentially no new ideas or alternatives.

Cheap talk

As in most U.S. elections, both candidates have ramped up criticism of the trade deficit with China and pledged to get tough on trade agreements. This type of rhetoric plays well with voters, who are concerned about the strong economic growth of China, which owns more than $1 trillion in U.S. government debt. Obama touted his moves to impose tariffs against Chinese tire imports, steel imports and solar panels.

"We have brought more cases against China for violating trade rules than the previous administration had done in two terms," Obama boasted during the debate.

Romney, though asserting that "we don't have to be an adversary in any way, shape or form," again promised to label China a "currency manipulator" immediately after the election, which led moderator Bob Schieffer to wonder about the possibility of a trade war.

Despite the tough talk, respondents to a national HuffPost/YouGov poll doubted Romney's sincerity. Fifty percent of respondents said they were skeptical that Romney would follow through on his promise to crack down on China's trade policies, while 23 percent said they were confident that he would. The yuan has been appreciating steadily without the direct threat of sanctions, making it unlikely that either candidate would take any drastic action.

Containing Iran

The subject of Iran's nuclear ambitions dominated the foreign policy debate, and Romney called it the greatest national security threat to the United States. Again, beyond levying personal attacks, the candidates largely agreed on a policy of continued sanctions to convince Tehran to abandon its nuclear development and agree to UN-backed inspections.

"As long as I'm president of the United States, Iran will not get a nuclear weapon," Obama promised. "I made that clear when I came into office. We then organized the strongest coalition and the strongest sanctions against Iran in history, and it is crippling their economy. Their currency has dropped 80 percent. Their oil production has plunged to the lowest level since they were fighting a war with Iraq 20 years ago. So their economy is in a shambles."

Romney snipped that he would have put sanctions in place earlier and pledged to tighten sanctions even further, barring ships that carry Iranian oil from U.S. ports and to indict Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad under the UN Genocide Convention.

Both candidates said that military action would be a last resort, and shied away from explicitly saying an Iranian attack against Israel would be an attack on America itself. Obama, however, threatened the "clock is ticking" and the United States and its allies are monitoring the red line where Iran's nuclear ambitions reach the point of no return.

"We're not going to allow Iran to perpetually engage in negotiations that lead nowhere," Obama said.

America's longest war

Regarding Afghanistan, Romney actually shifted his previous positions to align more closely with the president. Both candidates now explicitly say 2014 will mark a significant withdrawal of troops from the region and a decrease of military action. Both candidates support the use of military drones to attack suspected militants in countries where the United States is not technically at war, such as Pakistan and Yemen.

Obama escaped criticism over civilian deaths by the drones and the huge increase in military casualties during his term. Of the 2,141 service members killed in Afghanistan over the past 11 years, 70 percent died during the Obama presidency. Under either an Obama or Romney administration, a residual military force would likely be left in the country, continuing to cost American taxpayers billions of dollars each year. Already, $90 billion has been spent on reconstruction efforts alone, with little to show for it.

Both candidates asserted that America's longest war was going well and that it was time to bring troops home.

"We've seen progress over the past several years," Romney said. "The surge has been successful, and the training program is proceeding at pace. There are now a large number of Afghan security forces, 350,000, which are ready to step in to provide security, and we're going to be able to make that transition by the end of 2014."

Obama said Al Qaeda's core leadership in the border regions of Afghanistan and Pakistan has been decimated and that it was "time to do some nation-building here at home."

Military spending

The night's sharpest exchange, and where the candidates most differed, came on military spending. Romney, as he has done at other points in his campaign, accused Obama of neglecting the military. In particular, he claimed that the U.S. Navy is smaller now than at any time since 1917.

"This, in my view, is the highest responsibility of the president of the United States, which is to maintain the safety of the American people," Romney said. "And I will not cut our military budget by a trillion dollars, which is the combination of the budget cuts that the president has as well as the [proposed] sequestration cuts. That, in my view, is making our future less certain and less secure. I won't do it."

Obama pounced, mocking Romney for being out of touch with modernization.

"You mentioned the Navy, for example, and that we have fewer ships than we did in 1916. Well, governor, we also have fewer horses and bayonets because the nature of military's changed. We have these things called aircraft carriers where planes land on them. We have these ships that go underwater, nuclear submarines," Obama countered.

Stuck at 50-50

In the end, the political sparring over foreign policy seems to have little impact on voters. Obama was more aggressive and scored more points than Romney, but polls have remained unchanged. Voters are concerned more with the domestic economy and jobs than they are with a nuclear Iran and unrest in Syria and Libya.

With a strong showing in the first debate, Romney made a good impression on undecided voters, looking assertive and presidential. He needed only to play defense in the second and third debates, and not make any major gaffes. By that measure, he succeeded. Obama faced huge pressure after a dismal performance in the first debate sent his poll numbers plummeting. He hit back hard in the second and continued his strong showing in the third. Is it enough to win back voters? History suggests that third debates do little to sway elections. Obama won the battle, but he may still lose the war.