CONNECT
NationofChange / Op-Ed
Published: Wednesday 24 October 2012
“This has been Romney’s problem all along, of course, but in the first debate he managed to disguise his vacuousness with a surprisingly combative, well-rehearsed performance.”
Obama as Commander-in-Chief, Romney as Banal Bully
I thought the third and last presidential debate was a clear win for the President. He displayed the authority of the nation’s Commander-in-Chief – calm, dignified, and confident. He was assertive without being shrill, clear without being condescending. He explained to a clueless Mitt Romney the way the world actually works.
Romney seemed out of his depth. His arguments were more a series of bromides than positions – “we have to make sure arms don’t get into the wrong hands,” “we want a peaceful planet,” “we need to stand by our principles,” “we need strong allies,” “we need a comprehensive strategy to move the world away from terrorism,” and other banalities.
This has been Romney’s problem all along, of course, but in the first debate he managed to disguise his vacuousness with a surprisingly combative, well-rehearsed performance. By the second debate, the disguise was wearing thin.
In tonight’s debate, Romney seemed to wither — and wander. He often had difficulty distinguishing his approach from the President’s, except to say, repeatedly, “America needs strong leadership.”
On the few occasions when Romney managed to criticize the President, he called for a more assertive foreign policy – but he never specified exactly what that assertiveness would entail. He wanted “tougher economic sanctions on Iran,” for example, or “stronger support for Israel” – the details of which were never revealed.
Obama’s most targeted criticism of Romney, on the other hand, went to Romney’s core weakness – that Romney’s positions have been inconsistent, superficial, and often wrong: “Every time you’ve offered an opinion,” said Obama, “you’ve been wrong.”
Nonetheless, I kept wishing Obama would take more credit for one of the most successful foreign policies of any administration in decades: not only finding and killing Osama bin Laden but also ridding the world of Libya’s Gaddafi without getting drawn into a war, imposing extraordinary economic hardship on Iran, isolating Syria, and navigating the treacherous waters of Arab Spring.
Obama pointed to these achievements, but I thought he could have knitted them together into an overall approach to world affairs that has been in sharp contrast to the swaggering, bombastic foreign policies of his predecessor.
Like George W. Bush, Mitt Romney has a pronounced tendency to rush to judgment – to assert America’s military power too quickly, and to assume that we’ll be viewed as weak if we use diplomacy and seek the cooperation of other nations (including Russia and China) before making our moves.
President Obama won tonight’s debate not only because he knows more about foreign policy than does Mitt Romney, but because Obama understands how to wield the soft as well as the hard power of America. He came off as more subtle and convincing than Romney – more authoritative – because, in reality, he is.
Although tonight’s topic was foreign policy, I hope Americans understand it was also about every other major challenge we face. Mitt Romney is not only a cold warrior; he’s also a class warrior. And the two are closely related. Romney tries to disguise both within an amenable demeanor. But in both capacities, he’s a bully.
This article was originally posted on Robert Reich's blog.
Get Email Alerts from NationofChange
ABOUT Robert Reich
ROBERT B. REICH, one of the nation’s leading experts on work and the economy, is Chancellor’s Professor of Public Policy at the Goldman School of Public Policy at the University of California at Berkeley. He has served in three national administrations, most recently as secretary of labor under President Bill Clinton. Time Magazine has named him one of the ten most effective cabinet secretaries of the last century. He has written thirteen books, including his latest best-seller, “Aftershock: The Next Economy and America’s Future;” “The Work of Nations,” which has been translated into 22 languages; and his newest, an e-book, “Beyond Outrage.” His syndicated columns, television appearances, and public radio commentaries reach millions of people each week. He is also a founding editor of the American Prospect magazine, and Chairman of the citizen’s group Common Cause. His widely-read blog can be found at www.robertreich.org.
25 comments on "Obama as Commander-in-Chief, Romney as Banal Bully"
October 25, 2012 9:52am
!983 was BEFORE suicide terrorism was even on anybodies radar. Yes, any failure on this scale is the fault of the President (ANY President). "...ambivalent... intelligence " Is STILL the responsibility of ANY President.
At Least I listen to a second opinion .
October 25, 2012 8:40am
It is so simple when you clear away the fog....a rich lying, sneaky, slimy, tax evading, money hiding, voter suppression, war mongering, women hating, voucher health care promoter white guy against a patriotic, country loving, moral, health for all, prosperity for all black guy.
October 24, 2012 9:16pm
On Benghazi: In the 'town hall debate' Romney misstated the issue as one of what Obama said and did on 9/12; but in fact what the aftermath revealed about the Obama administration was far worse than clumsy Romney could articulate: a determination to stick to a Moslems-are-always-virtuous-victims ideology rather than to truth. For over a week, despite ample info to the contrary, the Administration was spinning to press and public and UN that the Benghazi event was all about a spontaneous and forgivable popular reaction to an old video - nothing about a terror attack pre-planned precisely for 9/11.
In the last 'debate' Romney tried to look more 'presidential' by not unpleasantly challenging the specifics of Obama's policies which have promoted and appeased and indulged Islamo-nazi movements and regimes in the Mideast - including: Iran's ayatollarchy, now 4 years closer to nukes and rewarded for its suppression of the Green movement - and for 30 years of terror by proxies which have killed thousands of Americans - by Obama's administration always begging for more 'dialog'; Syria's Assad (Iran's partner in terror, who until last year was also being begged for 'dialog'); the new Islamizing Turkish regime (which has just about totally muzzled what used to be a vigorous press); Lebanon's now-Hezbollah-dominated government; Egypt's Moslem Brotherhood (whose leader two years ago pronounced jihad vs the USA and has not retracted it); and Hamas in Gaza (which Obama quietly leaned on Israel to tolerate and ease up on - and meanwhile Obama takes credit for allegedly protecting Israel from the resulting increased rockets).
Unlike Obama, Romney appears at times to understand that not merely a single movement - Al Qaeda - but an entire historic revolution has occurred, featuring not an Arab Spring but an Islamist winter, involving a variety of fanatic Islamic regimes and movements of various stripes, and that this revolution inevitably - and correctly - sees the world's leading non-medieval science-tolerant modern-age power, the USA, as its enemy, no matter what the USA does.
But Romney could not afford to look like the bearer of such bad news to dispel the Obama fantasy - blessed for four years by most of the MSM - of kumbaya progress in the Mideast. Americans don't want to hear bad news, least of all at a so-called pres. 'debate'. Romney had to make sure to look un-scary, non-warmongering, and 'presidential' .
October 24, 2012 1:44pm
This is a despicable article, though hardly unexpected. "...I kept wishing Obama would take more credit for one of the most successful foreign policies of any administration in decades..."
Really? This is a president who has not only declared, and defended, his own power to murder people without due process, without evidence of any crime, and usually without knowing even their identities. If a president is permitted this power -- which Mr. Reich seems to see as a mark of "success," what power does he lack? He has announced, and his Attorney General has defended, his right to murder an American citizen without charges, without a trial, without a shred of evidence. Two weeks later, in true capo style, he went back and murdered his 16-year-old American son, whose crime seems to have been selecting a poor role model for a father.
The moral, ethical, and legal depravity of this administration -- and the entire Democratic Party -- is on full display. Due to the white supremacist Republicans, it is difficult to see the wide gulf separating the horrific polices and practices of our ruling class and the fundamental decency of most Americans, but it is there. Reich's posting here is shameful, as is something called "NATIONOFCHANGE" posting it.
October 24, 2012 4:34pm
Name one US President who has not accepted that the US military has the power to kill a person in time of war considered a threat to the nation.. without any due process?
If we have a failure, it is a Constitutional one.
BTW, where are the legions of Republicans suing the US federal gov for violating the Constitution?
October 24, 2012 1:15pm
Tabitha, in response to your question "Can somebody explain here what wrong was done in Libya and what the administration is supposed to be covering up?"
Bombing Libya and supporting the puppet government the "rebels" set up is what we did wrong in Libya. Before we wrecked it, Libya had the most prosperous society in North Africa, with free education and universal health care. Gaddafi, for all his flaws (which are arguably fewer than any of our leaders), used the oil money for the people.
After what we did, Libyans will have to wait a long long time to restore the status quo ante. Basically they will have to wait until somebody else like Gaddafi comes by and kicks the imperialists out.
Gaddafi was also not as unpopular as our propagandists would have us believe, and we have not heard the last from Libya.
October 24, 2012 4:30pm
Danh, try talking to the Libyans next time you think you know what is best for them. Can Libya's freedom and recovery be such a bad thing that a civilian mob of many tens of thousands went out shortly after Steven's death, with many supporting the US position, and attacked and overran a major militant compound?
>> Gaddafi, for all his flaws (which are arguably fewer than any of our leaders)
Sorry, I didn't realize you were joking with us. Continue. It's funny.
>> Gaddafi was also not as unpopular as our propagandists would have us believe
Yeah (lol) every dictator is very popular with a small band that benefits off the dictatorship... lol.. like that great tyranny we have called the US of A and its dictators.. rotfl....
October 24, 2012 12:29pm
@Ed, Traveling to fund raiser is false.
====================
This link has chart to showing attacks on US embassies.
"Having Ronald Reagan in office didn't mean an end to attacks on US diplomatic targets. Despite Reagan’s refrain of "peace through strength," several high-profile attacks on US diplomatic facilities occurred on his watch, including the bombing of the US embassy in Beirut, Lebanon, by Islamic militants. "
http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2012/10/libya-consulate-embassy-atta...
Links not working? Join the two lines.
http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2012/10/
libya-consulate-embassy-attacks-obama-romney
===========================
Last link. Who cut security dollars for the embassies:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/dana-milbank-forget-about-big-bir...
Link not working? Join the three lines. Sorry not sure why link is not posting.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/
dana-milbank-forget-about-big-bird/2012/10/09/
5f9a411c-1258-11e2-ba83-a7a396e6b2a7_story.html
"For fiscal 2013, the GOP-controlled House proposed spending $1.934 billion for the State Department’s Worldwide Security Protection program — well below the $2.15 billion requested by the Obama administration. House Republicans cut the administration’s request for embassy security funding by $128 million in fiscal 2011 and $331 million in fiscal 2012. (Negotiations with the Democrat-controlled Senate restored about $88 million of the administration’s request.) Last year, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton warned that Republicans’ proposed cuts to her department would be “detrimental to America’s national security” — a charge Republicans rejected."
October 24, 2012 12:01pm
Clint is an old man---his own daughter was on TV recently and wanted people to NOTE that she did not agree with his politics.
All the righties are complaining about Iran and Syria and Romney the idiot inside his head speaking said Russia was our #1 enemy. So what does the right wing want ----to send 100,000 troops in and kill all the mobs of people protesting because some terrorist have infiltrated the countries of the middle east ? Actually there was no al Quida in IRAQ til G W BUSH & those annointed with OIL had the bright idea to invade Iraq which let the terrorist in when Saddam always kept them out.
October 24, 2012 1:02pm
Exactly. Time to end the continual mindset of war and get back to being a principled and peaceful nation.
October 24, 2012 11:50am
Romney was a schoolboy bully and grew up to be handed 2 million dollars. He's used to getting his way and the king-inside him was a total mental mess when as a young bishop went to France living in a palacial apt tried to convince the wine drinking french to give it up and he failed.
He's been making money off of other people's grief for years. I don't know how anyone can vote for a Mormon High Priest anyway.....we don't need a religiously run gov't by someone who is a member of a cult who believes lying is okay if the results justify it... and Jesus is going to show up in Missouri the next time and other bizzare religious bunk.
October 24, 2012 11:55am
Can somebody explain here what wrong was done in Libya and what the administration is supposed to be covering up? So far all one hears are accusations but exactly what is the President being accused of? Yes, people died and that is very sad and unfortunate. Is the mistake not calling it a terrorist attack or is it not providing enough security? Is it the conflicting reports that came out? If it is about lack of security, who cut the budget so drastically that the embassies had to do with what they had?
The President is the commander in chief with several departments and people under him who handle the day to day affairs but it seems to me Republicans are bent on finding a way to link this situation directly to the President and blaming him for it. Romney couldn't wait for sunrise to rush to the microphone to lay blame on the President even before the facts came out. I understand that the two parties will never be friends but when it comes to such tragedies and all you think about is how to cut people down, it is shameful and hateful.
You have a very descent human being well respected and admired around the world. Can you say the same about your Romney?
Don't ever forget the thousands of men and women who came home in body bags from Iraq and Afghanistan for the mistakes you made and stop being so self righteous and so hateful.
One more thing: remember the mobs of Libyans who took to the streets with placards saying "America, We Are Sorry" "We Love America" "Chris Was Our Friend" , and then went on the attack on the militias. When has anyone ever seen such a demonstration of love from an Arab country?
October 24, 2012 10:35am
BENGHAZI : An Ambassador , and three others DIED. HOW does that fit into a "... most successful foreign policies of any administration in decades....."?
And then the cover-up.
Yes, Biden was supposed to be his Foreign Relations Man, didn't work out too well. What a surprise.
October 24, 2012 12:21pm
Well, let's see, Chris. The year is 1983 and 241 U.S. servicemen were killed in the Beirut suicide attack on the marine corps barracks. Was Reagan a failure at foreign policy?
There was no cover up in Benghazi. You're just eating up all that conservative propaganda. The administration wanted to get the facts straight and the intelligence community was ambivalent about what happened for several days. Americans like to believe everything is clear cut and determined within five seconds. Not so.
October 24, 2012 11:55am
All ambassadors live in danger and especially in the middle east. All embassies are protected by the marines. This one the tragedy occurred in was accompanied by a Navy Seal and was an INTERIM facility with less security. Ambassadors complain all the time that so much security interferes with them doing their job. So what in H has that got to do with Obama's foreign relations----he's not responsible for the people rioting or for al Quida. As it is---the right wing seems to be pretty sad that gave the okay to go after Bin Ladin. Amazing....just amazing to read these very silly comments coming from what is supposed to be "bright people" like Darrell Issa the publicity hound.
.
October 24, 2012 10:25am
ED:
Whether or not the President was on an airplane traveling to a fund-raiser is something I can't prove or disprove, but I guess my feeling is: who the hell cares? Am I going to vote for the opposing candidate for such a flimsy reason? Maybe you and your fellow plutocrat-worshipers would, but I hardly see it as a determining factor.
Should the President have cancelled all scheduled events and closeted himself with a radio or phone contact with someone in Libya? That clearly seems the function of the State Department. Sure, the President acknowledges that the buck stops with him (in contrast to your "mistakes were made" Republican idol, W), but what could the President have done that he didn't do?
I used to be a fan of Clint Eastwood, but no longer. I think he's suffering from dementia, and the fact that he would stand before a convention of white well-heeled Republicans and show disrespect for the President because he endorses the me-first greed and selfishness of a political party that has only pandered to the rich throughout my entire life (and I'm a retired senior) has soured me on his acting career.
It's an amazing thing; the Republicans like to discount the President's involvement in the raid of bin Laden's hideout in Pakistan, yet they now expect him to have been imprisoned in the White House to personally handle an event that was not fully known until days later.
Well, you can let the President go, but maybe some of us, who have worked for salaries all our lives, are not going to empower a spoiled elitist who will only work for the advantage of his own minority class. Some of us vote with our heads, with an eye to our wallets, while others just vote for Most Popular or what-have-you.
October 28, 2012 12:22pm
The attack on the US consualte in Libya has functioned in this campaign (where it should have no role whatsoever) soleley, it seems to me, as a means to deflect our attention (yet again!) from real issues that need to be addressed. Addressing such issues threatens the short term gains of the powerful so they want to delay dealing with them as long as possible ...
October 24, 2012 1:05pm
Amen.
October 24, 2012 11:46am
"It's an amazing thing; the Republicans like to discount the President's involvement in the raid of bin Laden's hideout in Pakistan, yet they now expect him to have been imprisoned in the White House to personally handle an event that was not fully known until days later."
Ron, it's even more amazing than that. In arguing with another angry racist, white guy recently, it became apparent that while he was enraged that Obama got bin Laden, he would have regaled "W" as a hero if he had done the same thing. That Obama did it is what enrages clowns like "Ed" and the other right wing trolls here. And what is it about Obama that so enrages these angry white guys? Look no further than the color of Obama's face. And that, in my view, is what the core of this election is really about, at least from the Republican viewpoint, getting the black guy out of the WH, putting the white guy back in, and making America safe again for rich, white men. Everything else, at least from Romney's view, is just smoke and mirrors. This explains why "Mitt the Shit" can "flip flop" within five minutes time, because the value of anything he says is measured on its effectiveness in getting the black guy out of the WH and putting the white guy back in.
October 24, 2012 1:32pm
TRUE:
I've said pretty much the same thing myself, at other posts. I really don't know, but having some distant relatives in Florida who clearly support Romney because he's white, I know it's a hidden factor in this election. I just don't know how much, however, because it's hard to measure, since it isn't openly acknowledged.
And right now I'm living in a predominantly conservative town, unlike the Santa Fe I lived in for 30 years, and some of the anti-Obama propaganda and gross caricatures I see around here only sickens me because of its virulence.
October 24, 2012 3:35pm
So true. I really feel that many people are voting for Romney because he and Ryan are good looking white men. The attacks on the president are made up garbage. Obama has done more for me and my family than any president in my adult life. 4 years ago my husband was unemployed and I was in the hospital with no health insurance. The cheaper rates for Cigna at that time made it afforable for us. We bought a car with cash for clunkers, because our clunker was trash. My sons are covered under our health insurance, but would not be if it weren't for "Obama care". There are many other reasons Obama is a great president...and it is a shame that there are so many people who have hated a black man in the White House.
October 24, 2012 10:12am
bho as apoligizer in chief
October 24, 2012 9:54am
If this is Mr. Reich's view is of a Commander-in-Chief:
CBS News publishes emails 2 hours after Benghazi attack
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-18563_162-57538689/emails-detail-unfolding-b...
then he should study harder. President Obama was on an
airplane traveling to a fund raiser while the Benghazi consulate
was still under attack.
Clint is right,
We have to let him go.
October 28, 2012 12:17pm
What does the attack on the Benghazi consulate have to do with voting for President (other than a useful distraction for our non-news-media to deflect our attention from real issues?).
October 24, 2012 4:17pm
You are right. The US leadership, including those trying to keep the next four years from turning around and hitting bottom, should have stopped all action even when they didn't know what had happened.. and even though the intelligence community did not come to a definitive conclusion until weeks later.. obviously following a number of leads.
Is that your idea of foreign policy failure by a leader? Are you the type of person that as a leader would drop long term strategy and throw off the schedules and good will of many partners in order to pant and jump up and down because you want to appear to be doing something extra in a given situation even though you can easily keep in touch with the professionals who are hard at work taking care of the business details?