Partners in Polemics

Call it an absence concrete policy initiative on the part of Democrats or the absence of alternative policy formulation on the part of Republicans, never in the recent electoral history of the United States has polemics become so central to the campaign. In fact, when the results are out in the first week of November, do not be surprised if Obama's performance or the lack of it, in the first presidential debate proves detrimental.

With less than two weeks to go for the ballots, this week's debate at Lynn University in Boca Raton focused mainly on a subject that US voters do not give much importance to: foreign policy. However, for everyone else, this is the most important aspect of the elections. The debate not only allows the global audience to take a peep inside the minds of the candidates, it also helps them analyse how different Democrat foreign policy is from that of the Republicans and vice versa.

Considering that facts have been at a premium in the current campaign, these debates have turned out to be merely polemics. And yet, they are going to decide the result of the elections.

Like the last debate, Obama clearly dominated the debate and Mitt Romney basically got another chance to prove that not only is he clueless on the issue of economy and internal security, he is equally at sea when it comes to foreign policy. Clearly cautious because of his previous gaffe in the second debate where he accused Obama of not calling the lynching of the US Ambassador to Libya an “act of terror”, which Obama had actually done, or when he said that “Iran needed Syria to have an access to the sea” ignoring the fact that Iran has 1500 Kilometers of coastline; Romney avoided to tread in unknown territory and tried to pull the debate back to the economy where he though he could corner the incumbent. But he could not prevent repeating the Iran-Syria-sea route gaffe once again.

One of debate's funniest moments was when Romney mixed up his export and import figures and tried to explain through hand gestures that America imports much more than it exports. In a normal situation, it would have invited jeers or at least gasps but not here. Apparently, co-chairman of the Commission on Presidential Debates, Mike McCurry, had cautioned the audience that, as in the previous debates, there is to be “no clapping, no cheering, no yelling, no harrumphing, no gasping” response to the candidates’ remarks. The instruction clearly saved the day for Romney.

And this when Romney was not short on advisers on foreign policy. While former Republican Senators Jim Talent and Norm Coleman were continuously tutoring him on the subject, old hands like George W Bush’s former CIA director Michael Hayden and his Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff advised him on internal security. Dan Senor, a former spokesman for the Coalition Provisional Authority in Iraq, is reported as advising Romney on the Middle East. The last one deserves a gasp and a gulp at the same time.

Michael Hayden's involvement also meant that the discussion about Russia and China started bordering paranoia even by Republicans' standards. In fact, recent commentaries in the pro-government outlets in Moscow and newspapers in Beijing suggest that whosoever will win the election will have tough-time overcoming the embarrassment and bitterness while dealing with both these countries.

Similarly, while Romney said he did not have any intention of sending boots on the ground in Syria., in a previous interview to a private channel he was reported as averring the contrary.

“I think we have to also be ready to take whatever action is necessary to ensure that we do not have any kind of weapon of mass destruction falling into the hands of terrorists and whether that requires troops, or whether that requires other actions by our friends and allies,” Romney said.

In fact, on the issue of Iran, Romney suggested some ludicrous ideas that a clearly ill-informed audience appeared to lap up. Romney suggested that he would not allow Iranian oil in US ports. A factual error since US has not bought Iranian oil in decades. He also laughably suggested that he would try President Ahmadinejad under charges of genocide, which was laughed off even by some of the most right-wing legal and academic minds.

“There is a clear lack in focus as far as Romney's foreign policy ideas are concerned. Depending on the audience, he shifts from being a hawk to dove to hawk again. I am sure the audience must have noticed it,” says Tom Perriello, Virginia based political analyst and lawyer.

Experts also noticed that Romney virtually agreed with many of the initiatives taken by President Obama, during the debate. But analysts are divided on whether to see it as a lack of alternative on the part of the Republican candidate or as a virtual blurring of the line between the Republican and Democrat foreign policy ideas.      

A CBS News poll said 53 per cent believed Obama won the debate, versus 23 per cent for Romney and 24 per cent calling it a draw. The CNN poll put Obama as the winner by 8 percentage points. Other polls also put President Obama in a clear advantage. However, how much this will reflect in the national ratings is not clear.
The campaign now enters its decisive phase with two weeks of campaign rallies across battleground states.

Polls show a tied race, after Romney bounced back from what was a clear deficit by outshining Obama in their first debate on October 3. However, Romney will still have to win quite a  handful of Swing States to win the day including both Florida and Ohio, where the battle will shift in the final weeks.  

saurabhshahi@thesundayindian.com