President Obama and Republican presidential nominee Mitt Romney made clear this week that they share an overriding belief: American political and economic values should triumph in the world.
Where the two differ most is in how a debt-burdened United States, weary after a more than a decade of war, should engage other nations to pursue that goal.
Graphic
Explore the 2012 electoral map and view historical results and demographics
More from PostPolitics
Chris Cillizza and Aaron Blake
THE FIX | GOPers admit they have lost ground up and down the ballot lately. Explanations vary as to why.
Glenn Kessler
FACT CHECKER | The president says ‘90 percent’ of the current deficit is due to Bush policies.
Aaron Blake
Now that Akin is definitely going to be on the ballot, the NRSC suggests it might spend money on him.
Their differences emerged sharply during a pair of foreign policy speeches in New York, pushing the subject of U.S. international interests and power into the center of the presidential campaign with just six weeks to go.
A proponent of American exceptionalism, Romney has consistently outlined a far tougher approach to the world than Obama has practiced. He has emphasized the benefit of traditional allies such as Israel, punishing rather than cultivating difficult nations, and embracing a possible military confrontation with Iran.
Obama, whom Romney has accused of “apologizing for American values,” delivered his strongest defense yet of free speech and human rights at the U.N. General Assembly on Tuesday.
But he emphasized that diplomacy and partnerships, American assistance where wanted without heavy-handed demands from the top, are still his preferred approaches to promoting those rights worldwide and in dealing with antagonists such as Iran.
“It’s very clear in reading and hearing what the two candidates have to say that, at least rhetorically, there would be a significant change under President Romney,” said Karl F. Inderfurth, a former assistant secretary of state in the Clinton administration and now a senior adviser at the Center for Strategic and International Studies.
Inderfurth, who is not consulting either campaign, said some of the “swagger” of the George W. Bush administration would return to U.S. foreign policy under Romney.
“Obama has tried to tone that down and he has faced pushback for doing so,” he said.
Until now, the campaign has been concerned mostly with the economy, and foreign policy has been viewed largely as a strength for the president, who was behind the killing of Osama bin Laden.
But the recent unrest in the Muslim world — revealed in the attack in Benghazi, Libya, on Sept. 11 that killed Ambassador J. Christopher Stevens and three other Americans — has exposed Obama politically and been seized upon by Romney as the product of what he calls the president’s weak engagement of the world.
The conflicting philosophies Obama and Romney outlined this week are consistent in large part with their life experiences.
Those backgrounds have given each a different vantage on the world — a former chief executive’s broad-strokes view of how it should work and a former community organizer’s details-matter assessment — and different opinions about the best way to promote U.S. interests at a time of fiscal constraint at home and rapid change abroad.
In addressing the Clinton Global Initiative on Tuesday, Romney, the former chief executive of Bain Capital, told the audience that “when I was in business, I traveled to many countries.”
Where the two differ most is in how a debt-burdened United States, weary after a more than a decade of war, should engage other nations to pursue that goal.
Graphic
Explore the 2012 electoral map and view historical results and demographics
More from PostPolitics
Chris Cillizza and Aaron Blake THE FIX | GOPers admit they have lost ground up and down the ballot lately. Explanations vary as to why.
Glenn Kessler FACT CHECKER | The president says ‘90 percent’ of the current deficit is due to Bush policies.
Aaron Blake Now that Akin is definitely going to be on the ballot, the NRSC suggests it might spend money on him.
Their differences emerged sharply during a pair of foreign policy speeches in New York, pushing the subject of U.S. international interests and power into the center of the presidential campaign with just six weeks to go.
A proponent of American exceptionalism, Romney has consistently outlined a far tougher approach to the world than Obama has practiced. He has emphasized the benefit of traditional allies such as Israel, punishing rather than cultivating difficult nations, and embracing a possible military confrontation with Iran.
Obama, whom Romney has accused of “apologizing for American values,” delivered his strongest defense yet of free speech and human rights at the U.N. General Assembly on Tuesday.
But he emphasized that diplomacy and partnerships, American assistance where wanted without heavy-handed demands from the top, are still his preferred approaches to promoting those rights worldwide and in dealing with antagonists such as Iran.
“It’s very clear in reading and hearing what the two candidates have to say that, at least rhetorically, there would be a significant change under President Romney,” said Karl F. Inderfurth, a former assistant secretary of state in the Clinton administration and now a senior adviser at the Center for Strategic and International Studies.
Inderfurth, who is not consulting either campaign, said some of the “swagger” of the George W. Bush administration would return to U.S. foreign policy under Romney.
“Obama has tried to tone that down and he has faced pushback for doing so,” he said.
Until now, the campaign has been concerned mostly with the economy, and foreign policy has been viewed largely as a strength for the president, who was behind the killing of Osama bin Laden.
But the recent unrest in the Muslim world — revealed in the attack in Benghazi, Libya, on Sept. 11 that killed Ambassador J. Christopher Stevens and three other Americans — has exposed Obama politically and been seized upon by Romney as the product of what he calls the president’s weak engagement of the world.
The conflicting philosophies Obama and Romney outlined this week are consistent in large part with their life experiences.
Those backgrounds have given each a different vantage on the world — a former chief executive’s broad-strokes view of how it should work and a former community organizer’s details-matter assessment — and different opinions about the best way to promote U.S. interests at a time of fiscal constraint at home and rapid change abroad.
In addressing the Clinton Global Initiative on Tuesday, Romney, the former chief executive of Bain Capital, told the audience that “when I was in business, I traveled to many countries.”