Mitt Romney is in Europe this week, attending the opening of the Olympic Games in Britain and visiting Poland and Israel. The trip comes immediately after Romney's first foreign policy speech in months, made to the annual Veterans of Foreign Wars convention. The VFW address was a rehash of the usual racist Republican rhetoric about Obama -- he doesn't "want America to be the strongest nation on earth," he apologizes and appeases, he dislikes Israel," etc. Vice President Biden responded by calling Romney's speech "empty rhetoric and bluster,"and criticized it for not "offering any alternatives" to the president's foreign policy.
Of course, given that the differences between the foreign policy ideas of Obama and Romney are virtually nil, Romney might be forgiven for failing to enumerate them. The whole debate over foreign policy "credentials" is entirely empty; a farcical theater designed to obscure how little choice is actually on offer. Two men on stage at a debate, each arguing with each other, "No! I like Israel more! I will kill more terrorists! I will save the country from Iran!" It's pointless, except as a demonstration of ideological hegemony; a display of the limited parameters within which politics in the U.S. takes place.
Members of both parties have talked about the large differences between the current administration and the last one -- Democrats, as if Franklin Roosevelt and John F. Kennedy had just been re-elected, a sentiment actually echoed by Republicans (a fair portion of whom have recycled the views of the John Birch Society for a new century).
But what exactly were the huge changes heralded by the Obama presidency? Despite the rhetoric of the inauguration, the talk of extended hands and unclenched fists, there hasn't been any great difference between the current and previous administrations. Afghanistan is still occupied, Iran is still the enemy (and subject to economic attacks, assassinations, and cyber warfare), special forces soldiers and drones wage undeclared war in dozens of countries, from Somalia to Pakistan to the Philippines, dictators and death squads are still the U.S. ally of choice from Bahrain to Colombia, interventions under the auspices of the never-ending War on Drugs continue to ruin lives, and cruise-missile humanitarianism has destroyed another country (Libya).
The only significant difference is that U.S. soldiers are no longer occupying Iraq -- although in the context of the rest of the actions taken by the Obama administration it would take extreme amounts of wishful thinking to portray this as a real change in U.S. foreign policy (on par with thinking that Nixon beginning the U.S. withdrawal from Vietnam signaled the end of foreign wars waged by the U.S.). Obama's 2002 statement that he is not opposed to all wars, "just dumb wars," makes his position clear -- he's treading the same path as George W. Bush and the rest of his predecessors, he's just going to do it better.
Obama supporters like to talk about how he has improved the American image overseas -- meaning Europe, since at this point he's joined his predecessors in becoming unpopular in the Third World. However, he has repaired longstanding alliances with countries like France and Germany, which were brushed off during the Bush years.
If Europe ever truly grows apart from the U.S., it will not be because the president is viewed as a boor and a rube. Individual people may be representative of larger trends in governments or economies, but they are not the cause of those trends, which is why talk of foreign policy "credentials" is pointless -- something apparently lost on the liberals who are already gleefully repeating the story of Romney's London Olympics gaffe. Of course, those same liberals also manage to overlook that the Romney shares his positions on Iran and Afghanistan with their favored candidate.
Rhetoric is about all that distinguishes the two at this point (even more so in foreign affairs than domestic). In an interview today with the right-wing Israeli newspaper Israel Hayom, Romney slammed Obama for failing to support Israel, and claimed that the president would like Israel to withdraw to its 1967 borders, which he called "indefensible." Leave aside for a moment the fact that supporting an Israeli withdrawal to 1967 borders was officially the U.S. policy for years, including during the Bush administration. Regardless of that, the idea that there is any pressure being exerted on Israel by the Obama administration towards that purpose was disproved by leaked information in the Palestine Papers, which in fact indicated that Israel essentially had a free hand in dealing with the Palestinians and Palestinian land under its control. As if to underline this, Obama pledged an additional $70 million in military aid to Israel, perhaps preemptively responding to Romney's criticisms by describing the aid as representing the U.S.'s "unshakable commitment to Israel."
We can see that the differences are scarce. Can anyone seriously argue that if Romney were to succeed Obama, U.S. drones would be killing significantly more people than they are today? Or maybe that he would quietly shelve the "kill list" and cease supporting Bahrain and Saudi Arabia?
Such things are absurd to imagine. It's equally absurd to describe Romney and Obama as somehow being polar opposites, and to call the decision between them anything other than a vote on exactly how upfront you want your leader to be with his jingoism and disdain for the poor. It's absurd to portray such a contest as offering any semblance of the choice supposedly so prized by western capitalist democracies.
So whoever you vote for, remember that any verbal slip-ups, gaffes, or embarrassments overseas won't affect much of anything. Nor will your vote itself.