Mitt and the Middle East

For this week's post I watched a Q&A Romney held in Pittsburgh (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=inE3rnGJZUk). Of particular interest to me was Romney's answer to the first question regarding US and Israel relations. The question, as posed, was inquiring about how Romney plans to strengthen relationships with Israel as changes in the Middle East have actually harmed relations between Israel and the Arab nations that surround it. Romney's answer however, did not really address this key issue. Instead Romney chose to concentrate on two things; what be believes the major aim of US foreign policy to be and what he imagines the role of the United States to be in the Middle East.

On the first point, Romney makes it explicitly clear that foreign policy initiatives ought to always have US interests in mind. Meaning, when participating in global affairs, the United States political analysts should always be asking themselves how can they best strengthen the United States. Although in theory this sounds appealing, this unilateral mindset has often gotten the United States in trouble. Thus, I'm concerned that Romney's strong position may actually hurt him in the long run. If he is too adamant about US affairs dominating those of other nations, he may turn off more moderate voters who may support more foreign aid policies abroad that are not always directly advantageous to the United States. With that being said, this hard-line stance will likely appeal to conservative voters (maybe Evangelical voters) who do prioritize the concerns of the US above all other nations all the time. This will be helpful in gaining support from this large bloc.

On the second point, Romney says that he wants to support the protesters in the Middle East and Northern Africa and ensure the promotion of democracy internationally. The rhetoric and logic he uses within his analysis of this issue raises three questions for me. Firstly, what does Romney mean by support. Although it sounds fine and nice to support the Arab Spring, what specific mechanism does Romney endorse to show this support? Is a mere statement of support sufficient or is Romney advocating for military assistance? Specifics are necessary to fully understand Romney's position. Secondly, what does Romney think of the current office's actions in the Middle East? Does Romney support a no fly zone, or would he decrease military intervention? Although linked to the first issue, this concern stands separate as Romney's positionality when compared to Obama has consequences for his support. Specifically, he would more likely gain support from conservative right-wing voters if he opposes Obama and detach himself from the current administration. Thirdly, why did Romney not link his discussion of democracy to a discussion of human rights and/or religion? When discussing democracy I was waiting for Romney to mention has it was the 'mission' or 'duty' of the United States to intervene in the Arab Spring or support the citizens who are rebelling in the streets. To me, it seemed like a logical link Romney could have made to appeal to religious voters and to make the issue more personal to the Religious Right.

Jobs, Jobs, Jobs

For this week's blog I wanted to discuss one issue that will prove critical for Romney not only in winning the Republican ticket, but potentially, in winning the national election that is expected to be between Romney and Obama - Jobs. Job creation and more generally the issue of economic development is of great concern to American citizens. As the majority of the population is still feeling the effects of the recession and as movements such as Occupy Wall Street increase in popularity there is a clear opinion being expressed by the American people - they are not happy about our current economic decision. For candidates, this means that they need to prove to voters that they will best solve for our current economic crisis. Romney attempts to detail his plan for growth and development in the extensive review on his campaign website (http://www.mittromney.com/jobs).

Romney's plan, as is evident merely by looking at it, is outwardly comprehensive. Romney addresses issues of regulation, taxation, subsidization, and other political and economic issues that he believes will improve the state of the American economy. What concerns me most about this long proposition is not the technical details that make-it-up, but more the presentation of this information. If Romney and his advisors believe that the average American is going to take the time to read this whole packet, or even the summarized version, they are sorely mistaken. It is imperative that Romney use this outline as a platform for his ideology, but that he work to translate the principles laid out into this document into soundbites and popular culture that are more available and accessible to the American people. If he can incorporate these ideals into the media, he can better disperse his ideas into the American marketplace of ideas. It is necessary he do this, because without making this information more accessible, regardless of the strength of his policies, he will not be able to beat out his fellow Republican nominees, and if he does, he will surely not be able to un-seat President Obama.

Linking this to religion, it is beneficial for Romney to target religious organizations when bringing his job plans into the public sphere. By discussing jobs in religious places such as churches and with religious voters Romney can combine the practical implications of his job plan with the moral duty that underlies his philosophy. Using religion as a vehicle to deliver his message will serve two purposes; one, more people will better understand the basics of Romney's job plan and two, Romney can illustrate how his job plan is beneficial to religious populations as it aligns with their ideals. This would strengthen Romney's campaign, and potentially, help him win over the Religious Right.

Going Green for 2012

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970203388804576613293746516756.html

Romney's position on environmentalism, much like the majority of his political stances, has fluctuated throughout his political career. As the attached article summarized, Romney's stance on issues relating to the environment was relatively left-leaning when he was governor of Massachusetts. In both regulatory politics he endorsed and the appointments he made Romney exhibited a care for the environment. Likewise, in some cases, this concern for the environment was prioritized above the rights of businesses. Take into account Jonathan Foy's lawsuit that mandated the cleanup of Boston Harbor. Foy, an environmental specialist appointed by Romney, took a hardline position on environmental preservation that was indirectly supported by Romney as he endorsed Foy as the leader of multiple governmental agencies.

This article argues that Romney's policy history in regards to green legislation is going to hurt him in his 2012 campaign. The Republican party, although not inherently anti-environmentalism, generally prioritizes the rights of businesses over protection of the environment and does not pursue very progressive environmental policy. Therefore, the article claims that because of the political position of conservatives, Romney will have to redefine his environmental position or he is open to critique from other candidates for his overly-liberalized position on environmental regulation and preservation.

I have to say that I partly agree with the analysis presented in this article. Although I as an individual support very strong environmental policy, Romney's major appeals need to be the conservative voters in the United States. Such strict regulatory policies are not endorsed by the Republican party at large and therefore, Romney needs to amend his position to better align with the right-leaning population in America. With that being said, Romney is going to have to work to create a coherent policy platform that simultaneously respects the rights of businesses and the rights of the environment. Romney's policy past is too pronounced for him to entirely abandon any support for environmental rights. Therefore, he will need to create a permutation of his past policies and the policies desired by the current voters he is concerned with appeasing. If he can do this, he may even be able to win over some moderate Republicans who value the environment equal to their value of businesses.