What if Romney had won? What would his State of the Union have looked like? Here’s one take on how he might have addressed three major issues; health care reform, the economy, and Iran.
Tom Rogan | All Articles
- Subscribe to RSS
- Follow on Twitter
Tom Rogan is a blogger and a contributor to The National Review and The Guardian. He's also written for The American Spectator, The Atlantic, The Christian Science Monitor, CNN, The Commentator, Fox News, USA Today and The Huffington Post. He lives in Washington DC.
Tensions are escalating in the Middle East. Faced with a regional dynamic in which systemic political change beckons, state and non-state actors alike are increasingly resorting to the use of force to defend and assert their foundations of power.
On Monday night, President Obama and Governor Romney will meet in the final presidential debate. The topic: foreign policy and national security.
Vice President Biden would have us believe that the ongoing Benghazi furor is the creation of Republican partisans. Accepting this proposition would be an act of profound delusion. The truth is that the Obama administration's reaction to the Benghazi attack reeks and serious questions are being asked. Sadly, so far only seriously deficient answers are being given. I wrote on this topic on Saturday. However, with the continued equivocation from Obama administration officials on the Sunday news circuit, further questions must now be asked.
The recent death (a suspected suicide) of a prisoner at the U.S. detention facility at Guantanamo Bay has helped reignite the debate over whether the facility should be closed. It’s a complex issue. However, I think Guantanamo should remain open.
Today has brought yet more violent protests against diplomatic facilities around the world. In addition to the attacks on U.S. embassies, the German and British embassies in Sudan were also attacked. News reports suggest that the confrontations between security forces and protesters in Tunisia and Egypt have resulted in a number of casualties. Fortunately, it now appears that host nation security forces are increasingly stepping in to protect diplomatic facilities (though far from sufficiently). I have a number of observations.
Unions used to be a good thing. In an era where unpaid debts resulted in incarceration, unions helped change America for the better. Unfortunately, big unions are no longer allies of the people. Instead, these organizations now exist with a singular operating focus: maximizing benefits for their limited class of members without regard for others. This is crony capitalism cloaked in the language of “equality,” greased with bundles of dollars and enforced by calculating intimidation. Where union leaders lead, the Democratic Party obediently follows.
America remains at war in Afghanistan. China is growing increasingly belligerent in her attempt to dominate the Asian Pacific. The E.U. continues to teeter on the edge of fiscal collapse. From watching the Republican and Democratic conventions, however, you would think that international affairs begin and end with America’s relationship with Israel and the challenge of a nuclear Iran. This absence of a substantive foreign policy debate is a product of our national failure to seriously consider the world outside America.
This week, The Guardian, a major U.K. newspaper, published two videos by two different economists. In both videos, the narrators advocate replacing our traditional capitalist market economy with a much more collectivist one.
With November fast approaching, much of the Republican Party’s focus is absorbed by the presidential contest.
Perhaps the omens were clear from the start. Regardless, it is now evident that President Obama’s attempted détente with Putin’s Russia has been a dismal failure.
“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”
First there were the Bin Laden leaks. In the days after the al Qaida leader was killed by U.S. forces, a great deal of detailed information concerning that operation was released to the media. Then-Defense Secretary Robert Gates made clear in public how he felt. Unfortunately, the Bin Laden leaks have not turned out to be isolated incidents. In early May, after the disruption of a terrorist plot in Yemen, reports surfaced concerning the reported role of British intelligence in the operation. This leak was especially serious in that it risked the trust caveat that underpins America’s most important (but increasingly sensitive) intelligence relationship. Over the last couple of weeks, two new stories have appeared in the press that concern highly sensitive U.S. government activities. Taken together, a worrying trend is becoming apparent.
On Friday, the Syrian people were once again subjected to the unrestrained immorality of the Assad regime. Amidst the continuing bloodshed and the unmitigated failure of the U.N.-led “peace plan,” demands for intervention are now increasing in Western capitals. Unsurprisingly, many of these calls are coming from Europe. Sadly, however, Europeans lack either the will or the capability to intervene. Ultimately, European calls for action are just another example of the false moralism on which E.U. foreign policy currently resides.
Later this week in Baghdad, Iranian representatives will meet with their Western counterparts to discuss Iran’s nuclear program. For the West, the conference objective is a verifiable agreement that ensures Iran will end any pursuit of nuclear weapons. Iran’s conference objectives are less clear. While a diplomatic outcome to this crisis is still possible, if the Baghdad talks fail, I believe that Netanyahu is likely to launch a military attack on Iran’s nuclear infrastructure within six months.