US Presidential 2012: Among GOP Leaders, No One Thinks of Europe

The Huffington Post ran this piece on the foreign policy ideas of the United States' Republican leaders for the 2012 presidential race. European and transatlantic issues are glaringly absent from the party's foreign agenda.

Also called the GOP (for "Grand Ole Party"), Republicans constitute the other half of the US political party system, with Obama's Democratic party seen as more aligned with European-style ideas on the role of the state, social welfare and other issues. These Republicans, who after the President's rough two-and-a-half years in office, are sure to give Obama a serious run for his money. European observers following the early maneuvers of the 2012 campaign should know these names and judge who might toe the line against Obama, who as the incumbent will surely be nominated again as his party's leader.

Here are EurAmerican's picks for the three best and worst GOP hopefuls when it comes to foreign affairs. At best, the top dogs present a balanced and respectful attitude toward America's involvements abroad, a condition that is not always a given, with a certain focus placed on trade and high-skilled immigration. Among the worst candidates, several posture around imbalanced policy considerations that range from myopic to unrealistic, on such issues as support for Israel and what to do against the threat of Islamic extremism. A casual reading of the HuffPo article reveals that, in a party overwhelmed with either domestic or at least non-European foreign policy questions, few take the time for pronouncements specific to the Old Continent.

The Best Three

1) Mitt Romney

HuffPo says, "in an effort to make the U.S. a more competitive economy -- particularly with China -- Romney has proposed enforcing looser immigration laws to take advantage of highly skilled workers. (...)

"Neoconservatism and the Arab Revolutions"

Here's a teaser from Ross Douthat's review of discussion among neoconservatives about what the U.S. military should do or not do in the Arab crescent currently in tumult. He takes pains to highlight the present disparity between neoconservatives and the Israeli government, which are often mistaken for one another.

The New York Times columnist frames the ideas in a way that clearly belie his own empathetic position to neoconservative sensibilities. But he concludes, so true to form, with a soft-touch but clear rejection of the idea to wage intervention with any involvement of U.S. boots on the ground.

Douthat starts and ends as follows:

"[Here is] a good piece exploring the divide that’s opened between American neoconservatives and many Israelis over the revolutions and protests currently roiling the Middle East — with neocons welcoming the fall of Hosni Mubarak and the promise of democratic change throughout the region, even as the Israeli leadership classes wax more pessimistic about the likely consequences of replacing despots with more popular regimes. “Could there be a starker illustration of just how mistaken the neocon-Israeli conflation always was?” Kirchik [the author of the linked piece] asks, and he’s right: The last few weeks should bury, once and for all, the foolish idea that neoconservatism’s rhetorical commitment to democracy promotion is just a smokescreen for Likudnik dual loyalties or U.S. imperialism.

...

"... The last time we imposed a no-fly zone on a weakened Arab tyrant who we hoped would soon be toppled by his own people, the year was 1992 and the tyrant in question was Saddam Hussein — and we have been at war in Iraq, in one sense or another, ever since."