Presidential Mitt 					 					 Oct 29, 2012, Vol. 18, No. 07					  						• By  WILLIAM KRISTOL     																  						  						   Single Page 							 Print 							 Larger Text 							 Smaller Text 							 							 Alerts 							               						  							  							  							  							  						    					      							                             				  					On September 2, 1939, the day  after Hitler invaded Poland, Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain made  clear in the House of Commons that he still entertained hopes for  negotiations with the Führer: “If the German Government should agree to  withdraw their forces then His Majesty’s Government would be willing to  regard the position as being the same as it was before the German forces  crossed the Polish frontier. That is to say, the way would be open to  discussion between the German and Polish Governments on the matters at  issue.”
 
  Newscom
  The  acting leader of the opposition, Arthur Greenwood, rose to reply to the  prime minister. He began by saying he would be speaking on behalf of  the Labour party. The prominent Conservative and opponent of appeasement  Leo Amery, appalled by what Chamberlain had said, dramatically  interrupted Greenwood from the Tory backbenches, shouting across the  chamber: “Speak for England, Arthur!”
   It’s not 1939. But the clouds are darkening and storms are gathering.  Americans sense the dangers we face. So in the foreign policy debate  for the rest of the campaign, Mitt Romney’s task is not merely to speak for the Republican party and conservative opponents of Barack Obama. Nor is his task merely to speak to  undecided suburban women. Mitt Romney’s task is to rise above  partisanship and gamesmanship, above debating points and electoral  calculations. Mitt Romney’s task is to speak for America.
  				  											  							 		                      										                      						   						  													 Related Stories  								More by William Kristol 								 							 													   					  					 What does this mean? It means speaking in a bipartisan way. It means  appealing to the broad American tradition of international leadership,  to the actions of Harry Truman as well as those of Ronald Reagan. It  means citing Joe Lieberman as well as John McCain, and the Washington Post  editorial page as well as The Weekly Standard. It means praising our  soldiers and our Marines, our diplomats and our intelligence  professionals. It means finding something to praise in the actions of  President Obama—perhaps his authorization of the raid that killed Osama  bin Laden—and someone to praise among Obama’s appointees—perhaps  Secretary of State Hillary Clinton for her tireless travels on behalf of  the nation and for stepping forward to take responsibility for the  tragic failure to provide security in Benghazi.
   Speaking for America also means speaking in a forward-looking way.  There’s no need for Mitt Romney to flyspeck Barack Obama’s foreign  policy record. Voters are aware of the deficiencies of Obama’s foreign  policy.In any case, Obama is not going to win the presidency on the  strength of his foreign policy. So Romney doesn’t have to mount a  detailed critique of various Obama foreign policies. He has to stipulate  that all is not turning out as Obama claimed it would, that all is not  well in the state of the world. Then, even more important, Romney has to  demonstrate that he can be trusted to steer the American ship of state  in a sounder direction and with a steadier hand. This will require  setting forth the core principles he will follow—principles of American  strength and leadership, of standing by our allies and of standing up to  enemies—and then explaining how, in general terms, he will execute a  foreign policy based on these principles.
   Speaking for America also means speaking -presidentially. It means  speaking less as a challenger to the current president, less as a critic  and a prosecutor of the current president, and more as .??.??. the next  president. Romney should appear by Election Day to be more presidential  than the incumbent.
   Mitt Romney is a combative and competitive man. But his worst moments  in the debates were when he became too pettily combative. His best were  when he briefly stipulated the failures of President Obama’s policies,  then pivoted to lay out his own agenda for the nation for the next four  years and beyond.
   It’s possible that adopting what might be called a -pre-presidential  rhetoric would deprive Romney of -various small victories on the  campaign trail. But the point isn’t to win small debating skirmishes.  The point is to win the presidency. The way to win the presidency is to  speak for America.
   				 |