Watching Republican presidential debate on November 12 on US foreign policy, you might be forgiven if you thought it shed absolutely no light on US foreign policy. After all, by definition ... and by God's good graces ... the views expressed represented those of people who will have precious little influence over America's international course.
Only one of these people can be the Republican nominee. And, in part thanks to performances like what Americans saw on Saturday, even that individual is very likely not going to ever be president of the US. As a consequence the vapidity of Herman Cain is irrelevant. The pro-torture stance of the wing-nuts in the group is irrelevant. The ridiculous zero-based foreign aid formula suggested by Rick Perry is irrelevant. Even the pontificating of Republican non-Romney of the Month, Newt Gingrich, is irrelevant. Because these weren't foreign policy ideas or positions. They were desperate cries for attention. Sadly, also irrelevant will be thoughtful views offered by Jon Huntsman, who clearly distinguished himself as the most capable, thoughtful, experienced, and credible of the crew.
This means that the 30 minutes of the debate that CBS chose not to air will have a virtually identical impact to the 60 minutes of Obama-bashing, fear-mongering, and peacocking that actually were broadcast. It is possible that some of the views that were offered by likely nominee Mitt Romney could be consequential. This would not seem to be good for US-China relations except that there is virtually zero possibility that president Mitt Romney — who would essentially be the hand-picked candidate of the business community — would actually follow through on his anti-Beijing sabre-rattling once in office.
Further, some of his statements were essentially meaningless to begin with, — like his assertion that a vote for him was the only way to avert Iran getting the bomb, not being backed by facts or even being remotely credible given how key what happens between now and when the next president takes office will be. But more important still is that Romney isn't going to be the next president either. In all likelihood that will be US President Barack Obama.
1. Obama is the incumbent. That matters. And he has become increasingly confident in using the bully pulpit to his advantage, at appearing presidential. The crucial issue is going to be economics.
2. Despite Europe's economic mess, a number of other factors suggest that the US economy may begin to tick upward more during the next year. Other parts of the world are likely to be growing from the emerging markets to, in a modest way, Japan. More importantly, the likelihood that the US unemployment rate declines the better part of a point to something closer to 8 per cent is pretty good.
3. Like Reagan, Obama is liked and seen as trying hard to do the right thing. That, plus some signs of progress goes a long way with the American people.
4. Furthermore, none of these candidates are a Ronald Reagan. Moreover, none of them are even a George W. Bush, which is saying something. Mitt Romney is the whitest white man in America. He will look more like the establishment than Obama in an anti-establishment year.
5. That search for alternatives could lead to a third party candidate. If it's Ron Paul it will eat into Romney's base. It is highly unlikely the left will pose a similar challenge to Obama.
As for the possibility of a centrist third party candidate, appealing as it may be, it will be less so to many if it appears that candidate can't win and will only increase the likelihood that Mitt Romney will be elected on the US Chamber of Commerce ticket.
6. While external events in the world, like the Iranian detonation of a nuclear device or a terror attack, could hurt Obama, in all likelihood, given his growing comfort with foreign-policy and the tendency of the American people to rally around the president in times of crisis, it would be a mistake to count on such a development being more likely to help the Republican candidate.
7. The reality is that while foreign policy won't be central to the election, Obama has already succeeded in doing something remarkable: Taking it off the table. He is hard to criticise given his record with Osama Bin Laden, Anwar Al Awlaqi, Muammar Gaddafi, meeting his promise in Iraq, starting to get out of Afghanistan, and restoring America's international reputation.
8. We haven't gotten to the one-on-one segment of the campaign yet. Whoever is the Republican candidate has to run against the very disciplined, intelligent, well-prepared, charismatic president. Which of those folks one saw Saturday night can hold their own versus Obama?
9. The Republican Party on the Hill, via the Tea Party and via its more extreme elements has adopted a bunch of policies that are astonishingly out of touch with the moment. They should be doing great given the economic problems. But they are not only seen as obstructionist on the Hill but they are seen as advocates of millionaires they don't want taxed and opposed to fairness in sharing the burden for the sacrifices fixing the economy will require.
10. By extension the leading voices for the Republican Party are folks like those on the stage ... and John Boehner and Eric Cantor and Mitch McConnell.
Really? That's going to grab America in the current environment? The electoral map says it will be close. But already Republican overreaching has pushed Ohio back towards Obama. The Republican hopes are: Florida, Marco Rubio has suffered some self-inflicted wounds. Virginia gets bluer by the day. It's close ... but it's trending toward the president. For those of you who watched the debate and were disheartened there is at least all the above to suggest that none of it mattered that much anyway. As of right now the favourite to be the next president of the US has to be the current president of the US.