Rod Dreher

The Epistemology of Modern Episcopalianism

Dubya 2012

By Rod Dreher • July 11, 2012, 7:00 AM

If you aren’t reading my colleague Daniel Larison’s daily eviscerations of Mitt Romney, you are missing a Curnonsky-level gourmet experience. I like this from the most recent:

The Iraq war was misleadingly sold to Congress and the public as a relatively low-cost, short-term affair (among other things), so conscription wouldn’t have made much of a difference in preventing it. If we want our political leaders to “think twice” about the wisdom of needlessly invading a country whose government posed no major threat to the United States, perhaps we should start by holding accountable the politicians that failed to do so.

This is a slap at Romney, or ought to be, given how he gives these foreign policy speeches that sound like they were dusted off from the last two Bush campaigns. Serious question to the room: In what economic and foreign policy ways is Mitt Romney substantially different from the Bush administrations’? I feel like he’s Dubya 2012. Am I missing something?

Posted in Politics, Republicans.

28 Responses to Dubya 2012

Sam M says:

July 11, 2012 at 7:25 am

It’s all about biography, not policy. Bush was an unserious, coke-snorting, playboy Yale legacy. Romney is a serious businessman who’s… smart.

I think these kinds of images matter more than ideas, to the extent that anything other than tribalism matters.
VikingLS says:

July 11, 2012 at 7:48 am

Rod I think the problem is the Republican base is still subject to information gatekeepers (mostly Newscorp) that continues to support the same dogmas they were supporting 12 years ago. That when many of those were employed by Bush and failed that failure has either been denied (Iraq is a free nation and ally now, that’s what matters) or blamed on sabotouge (the Iraqis didn’t step up the plate, the Iranians were underming us, Bush never got enough support from congress, etc.) As long as Fox news has Charles Krauthammer et al explaining to the right what the day’s news means we’re not going to see much change in the attitudes and subsequent voting habits of Republicans.
John E_o says:

July 11, 2012 at 7:57 am

I’d like to see a return to the Constitutional practice of only going to war when Congress declares war.
Tyro says:

July 11, 2012 at 7:58 am

perhaps we should start by holding accountable the politicians that failed to do so.

Everyone who was wrong about the Iraq war was wrong in a perfectly acceptable, culturally mainstream way for all of the right reasons. Holding them “accountable” for their “mistake” would simply be bad manners.

Mitt Romney supported the Iraq war for much the same reason everyone else did– it was the “serious” thing to do, it showed “support” of the Republican president, it was an act of a “tough, decisive leader”, and it pissed off hippies. While that did result in the wrong answer, plenty of pundits, politicians, and voters, want their candidate to use just that sort of calculus when making a decision.
CK says:

July 11, 2012 at 8:07 am

“This is a slap at Romney, or ought to be, given how he gives these foreign policy speeches that sound like they were dusted off from the last two Bush campaigns.”

Actually, that is an inaccurate statement. For those who have memories prior to 911, they will recall that The GWBush campaign for the 2000 election against Gore, GW called for a humble foreign policy. This was in contrast to the radically reckless foreign policy that Clinton maintained for 8 years, and was causing much grief worldwide. Seeing that GW’s father, in spite of his interventions, nevertheless maintained a relatively sane and reserved foreign policy vis a vis the Middle East and the Balkans (see Kristol’s lament of the ‘Arabists’ like James Baker). It stood to reason that GW, as promised in the 2000 campaign, would move foreign policy toward the more measured policies of his father. Of course, that all went down the drain, first, when Rumsfeld shut down GW’s attempt to remove the US from the Balkans as promised in the campaign, and second, when 911 “changed everything.”
thehova83 says:

July 11, 2012 at 8:52 am

So is Daniel trying to get some links and hits from Andrew Sullivan.
Siarlys Jenkins says:

July 11, 2012 at 9:12 am

No, you’re not missing anything. You are right on the money.

It is true that Bush was deceptively mild in his 2000 campaign, “all the better to get your votes my dear,” but in policy delivered you have it right.

It is also true that Romney is “smart” while Bush was “dumb,” a feckless puppet in the hands of Karl Rove and Dick Cheney, but a smart man committed to doing evil things is not a blessing, nor is a smart man operating on limited data. Romney may be smart at making money from the misfortunes of others, but in foreign policy, and economic policy, he is clueless as to what is going on in the real world.
CK says:

July 11, 2012 at 9:40 am

“Romney may be smart at making money from the misfortunes of others, but in foreign policy, and economic policy, he is clueless as to what is going on in the real world.”

Actually, that’s what Romney’s foreign policy is: making money from the misfortune of others. Bomb Iraq, Syria, Lybia, Iran? Cui bono.
Pete S says:

July 11, 2012 at 9:47 am

This is a strange campaign – nobody but the hardcore neocons seem to believe that Romney believes the nonsense he is spouting about foreign policy. His speeches do sound like they could have been delivered by George Bush in 2004, but there is no question that Bush believed what he was saying even if he did not quite understand it. Romney is too smart to believe half the things he says, but he is smart enough to know that his emotional appeals to chest-pounding phony patriotism will distract Republican base voters from realizing that his “jobs” plan is to blow up the debt and give the money to people who are already rich. Of course should he become President the only parts of his platform that he will implement are those he believes will get him elected in 2016 since his whole campaign is about meeting his personal goals.
Floridan says:

July 11, 2012 at 10:03 am

The difference is that no one takes statements by Romney, to the extent they contain any real information, seriously.
djf says:

July 11, 2012 at 10:10 am

Has anyone considered that Romney might be making these hawkish, neocon-ish speeches, neither for votes nor out of genuine belief in what he’s saying, but to keep campaign contributions coming in from certain donors? There are, after all, some wealthy neocon Republican donors on Wall Street.
Fred says:

July 11, 2012 at 10:35 am

Romney has surrounded himself with an ultra-hawkish neo-con foreign policy team. His foreign policy advisors are to the right of W when it comes to projecting American might abroad. Whom might we see in a Romney cabinet? John Bolton for pete’s sake…
joe mc faul says:

July 11, 2012 at 11:11 am

Romney can get elected by answering two questions:

1. What were the three greatest mistakes of the Bush administration and how will he prevent making them again.

2. What is one good accomplishment of the Obama administration and how will he continue the pursuit of that accomplishment.
Marchmaine says:

July 11, 2012 at 12:13 pm

Larison is also correct in pointing out that Obama is substantially Bush 2012.

So the real question, is: why is American foreign policy beholden to Wilsonian flights of fancy on both sides of the aisle?
Uncle Vanya says:

July 11, 2012 at 12:27 pm

SamM: “It’s all about biography, not policy. Bush was an unserious, coke-snorting, playboy Yale legacy. Romney is a serious businessman who’s… smart.”

A bad idea remains a bad idea no matter who is spouting it. If Romney really were such a smart man, surely, he would now that. Or, does being a “serious businessman” leave him blind to that self-evident truth?
Scott in PA says:

July 11, 2012 at 12:27 pm

No one in either party is making the distinction between necessary defense obligations and the failed “nation building” adventures, which have resulted in wasted lives and treasure. Even Ron Paul did not fill this void because he opposes most counter-terrorism measures and even opposed killing bin Laden. A sound defense policy was not on offer in 2012.
Steve in Ohio says:

July 11, 2012 at 12:49 pm

This was a challenge, but I came up with two differences. I prefer Romney’s positions on immigration (more restrictionist than Bush) and trade with China (he’s willing to criticize their unfair trade tactics).
mlindroo says:

July 11, 2012 at 1:00 pm

Ross Douthat is right. Romney needs to do two things that Bill Clinton did in 1992. One, he needs to explain why he is different from his discredited predecessors (in this case the GW Bush/Trent Lott/Tom DeLay/Jack Abramoff Republicans). Two, he needs to articulate a constructive and positive agenda why the middle class would be better off if he is elected President.

So far, Romney has merely been criticizing the Obama economy without proposing a clear alternative. I am actually starting to think Paul Ryan(!) might be the best VP option after all, if only because it would finally define what Romney stands for.

MARCU$
Art Deco says:

July 11, 2012 at 1:25 pm

Just a few thoughts for the board of know-it-alls here:

1. The President makes real choices with real consequences which may include no agreeable options.

2. The President has a base of information you do not.

3. All choices are prospective in character.

—

A hypothesis: Obama’s choices appear similar to G.W. Bush’s appear similar to Romney’s public statements appear dissimilar to G.W. Bush’s statements 12 years ago might just be because those are the choices that just about anyone similarly situated would make.
Beefy Levinson says:

July 11, 2012 at 2:02 pm

Even so Rod, you must dutifully turn out to vote for Romney because THIS IS THE MOSTEST IMPORTANTEST ELECTION IN THE HISTORY OF EVERYTHING!
RinTX says:

July 11, 2012 at 2:58 pm

“I think these kinds of images matter more than ideas, to the extent that anything other than tribalism matters.”

Which is to say that neither these images nor ideas matter at all. The political climate today revolves around nothing more than tribalism.

It’s very sad that ideas, governing philosophy, etc. do not matter anymore in our country. All that matters is whether the candidate’s name is followed by an (R) or (D).
Sands says:

July 11, 2012 at 3:32 pm

Radical interventionism is now, unfortunately, Republican dogma. Romney is just being a typical 21st century Republican.
Art Deco says:

July 11, 2012 at 5:34 pm

Radical interventionism is now, unfortunately, Republican dogma.

The ratio of military expenditure to domestic product is half of what it was in 1956. The death toll of American soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan is one-eigth of what it was in Korea and less than one tenth of that in Indochina. Republican politicians have proposed to ‘intervene’ in four (4) of the world’s 191 foreign countries.
Sands says:

July 11, 2012 at 6:24 pm

Art,

Military expenditure and the death toll have nothing to do with our level of intervention. Also, you’re making the false claim that intervention short of war isn’t intervention. I’ve got a bridge to sell you if you think that our military is involved in only four countries.
Art Deco says:

July 11, 2012 at 10:38 pm

Military expenditure and the death toll have nothing to do with our level of intervention.

That’s a stupid thing to say.

Also, you’re making the false claim that intervention short of war isn’t intervention. I’ve got a bridge to sell you if you think that our military is involved in only four countries.

I do not make any false claims. If you want a comment, I will tell you that 8 and 9 figure sums of financial patronage or arms sales are of scant significance. I do not want your bridge.
Sands says:

July 11, 2012 at 11:33 pm

Stupid? Come on now. You really want to claim that our intervention in Iraq was less significant than our intervention in Veitnam because the death toll was lower? Now who’s being stupid here?

The result of arm sales, financial patronage and our military presence is people flying airplanes into our buildings. Is that of scant significance to you?
Art Deco says:

July 12, 2012 at 5:47 am

The result of arm sales, financial patronage and our military presence is people flying airplanes into our buildings. Is that of scant significance to you?

Flying planes into our buildings has significance. The notion that it is a function of arms sales is a figment of the Paul-bot imagination.
JonF says:

July 12, 2012 at 7:09 pm

The significance of 9-11 is not that we should be perpetually at war in the Middle East. A quick punitory expedition to Afghanistan plus some covert stuff wherever Al Qaida reared its head, would have sufficed to make the point.