Romney talks about the need for better effectiveness in promoting American soft power. I was rather surprised that Romney would devote so much space to something that conservatives often deride. In the 2008 debates, Republican presidential candidates tried to out-macho the other guys on the stage. Here, Romney shows better nuance to his foreign policy thinking.
First, Romney does a good job explaining why soft power is important. In fact, I wish I had had Romney's book when I was in graduate school trying to sift through Joseph Nye's Soft Power, the book that introduced the concept to International Relations theory. Romney cites Hezbollah as an organization that has effectively capitalized on soft power with its humanitarian approach in Lebanon. Romney asks why the United States, despite leading the world in foreign aid (among other things), has not seen a more favorable response to its good deeds.
Which brings me to a second point. Romney posits a couple of reasons for the aforementioned quandary -- rivalry, jealousy, etc. However, Romney also believes that the United States has not effectively capitalized on its soft power. He very shrewdly outlines the inefficiencies in the foreign policy making apparatus. He then compares this bureaucracy with the Department of Defense, which long ago organized itself in such a way that it can effectively respond to crises. Romney wants to see a permanent position -- much like the Joint Chief of Staff in the military -- that is responsible for soft power. He also wants to see different command centers -- much like the command centers in the military -- divided up geographically that would be responsible for soft power in each given region. Lastly, Romney wants to see the United States work more with other countries that might have an incentive to carry out its soft power in a given, problematic area of the world.
I was struck by his argument for several reasons.
First, just when I think Romney is going for the red meat defense answer, he reaches back and delivers a well-thought out and responsible foreign policy idea. Romney is clearly seeking to be a thoughtful POTUS, not Rush Limbaugh's most favored conservative.
Second, despite the feverish anti-government sentiments within the conservative movement, the President of the United States is constitutionally the executive of the federal government and therefore must seek to run an efficient government. Much of the successes of any President depend on his ability to organize and reorganize the government bureaucracy. Understanding the role of the President is what makes a potential President Romney so appealing, since he spent his career reorganizing businesses.
In chapter 4, Romney has effectively argued for one way in which the government can better serve American interests -- by promoting American soft power.
More to come...
3 comments:
Pablo, you have been as critical of Romney as anyone. No one can call you a Rombot, and as such I am enjoying reading your insight regarding his book. Keep up the good work.
Sounds like a good idea. Until Romney lays out a plan to create a massive new bureaucracy. No sir, no thank you. No more government departments! Stop expanding government. The only way that this could be an agreeable proposal is if the military were cut to the exact dollar amount needed to fund this. Even then, I still don't want a new bureaucracy.
When I read that chapter, it occurred to me, that our foreign aid is much better given with an eye to soft power. Romney demonstrates his thoughtfulness and intuition. He clearly is focused on doing the right thing. And just doling out dollars as foreign aid without any strategic plan is not smart. Romney really is brilliant to capture this concept. He sure has set himself apart from the rest. Where else is the deep thought about what America needs to do going forward. Maybe Gingrich has some of Romney's intuitiveness but not his leadership skills. Romney really will be a great president.
Lori*
Post a Comment