Morality play instead of policy.

• Author: Burt, Richard
• Position: The Realist

Notwithstanding unsettling developments in the Middle East, Europe and Asia, the 2012 presidential campaign has failed so far to produce a meaningful foreign-policy debate. To some extent this is understandable; the struggling U.S. economy justifiably preoccupies most voters. Campaign aides thus still advise their candidates that "it's the economy, stupid," twenty years after this mantra helped Bill Clinton defeat George H. W. Bush. But ignoring the outside world is dangerous, particularly as we approach today's major turning point in international relations. Avoiding serious discussion of global affairs puts American security at risk and even threatens our economy because foreign-policy decisions can have powerful economic consequences.

Former governor Mitt Romney has of course criticized President Obama's foreign policy on a range of issues, including Russia, China, Syria, Iraq and Afghanistan. But he offers little to explain specifically how he would be tougher on Moscow or Beijing, keep troops in Iraq without a status of forces agreement with the Iraqi government or pursue a different course in Afghanistan. At worst, Romney is simply polemical--for example, in his assaults on President Obama's apologies or his insistence that he would never argue with Israel, including on an Israeli attack on Iran, which could thrust America into war and wreck its economy.

Nevertheless, Romney's superficial electoral rhetoric should not obscure the fact that Obama and his team provide extensive grounds for criticism in the president's weak and reactive policy toward the Middle East, his oversold engagement with Russia, his confused and confusing policy in Asia, and his inability to develop a realistic foreign-policy road map. Beyond errors in execution, the administration's policy also has been sorely lacking in strategy; as a result, Obama's approach often has permitted domestic politics to trump U.S. national interests, particularly when faced with opposition, as on the issue of Israel's settlements.

Of course, presidential campaigns rarely provide a good opportunity for serious foreign-policy conversation. Recall Republicans' 1952 accusations of "cowardly containment" and Democrats' 1960 charges about the "missile gap." This is partly structural, in that a sitting president must campaign on actual policy while a challenger seeks votes rather than practical solutions. But two factors make the current situation unique.

First, the absence of responsible conversation about world affairs is not limited to presidential contenders or other elected officials. Since America's Cold War victory twenty years ago, a near consensus has emerged in the United States, and to some extent in Western Europe, that the Soviet Union's demise was a historically inevitable manifestation of America's superior values, way of life, political process and approach to world affairs. America's international dominance is seen widely as a God-given right that is sustainable at minimal cost regardless of how we exercise our power. And those who question the costs, consequences or longevity of...