Obama and Romney: Twins Separated at Birth?


Fred Hiatt’s column in the Washington Post today charts out some startling similarities between leftie pinup model Barack Obama and the right’s black sheep, Mitt Romney. More disturbingly perhaps, both candidates articulate foreign policy agendas that are not so different from Bush’s, which has, hello!, proven to be about as unsuccessful as a foreign policy could be.

Obama talks a big line about withdrawal from Iraq, but his policy paper paints a different picture, calling for leaving enough troops there “to protect American personnel and facilities, continue training Iraqi security forces, and root out al Qaeda.” Even the troops we have there now aren’t up to these tasks. (Romney, like the rest of the Republicans, is stumbling all over himself to say neither “bring them home” nor “stay the course.”)

Both Romney and Obama want to expand the armed forces and to continue in the “We rule the world” vein that has earned the United States intense foreign animosity since 2000. “We are a unique nation, and there is no substitute for our leadership,” says Romney. Right on, says Obama: “We can be this America again. . . . [A]n America that battles immediate evils, promotes an ultimate good, and leads the world once more.'”

Both are jumping on the terrorism bandwagon. Calling it the biggest threat to the United States might be true, at least in the post-Iraq world, but should candidates be promising another Cold War? (I was pretty young at the time, but I don’t remember fears of nuclear war being much fun.) Romney says “the jihadist threat is the defining challenge of our generation,” comparing it to Nazi Germany and Stalin’s Soviet Union, and he promises a powerful response. Obama agrees: “To defeat al Qaeda, I will build a twenty-first-century military and twenty-first-century partnerships as strong as the anticommunist alliance that won the Cold War to stay on the offense everywhere from Djibouti to Kandahar.”

Despite my personal disgust for Romney based on his frantic attempts to out anti-gay the Christian right, it may be better to share common ground with him than with, say, Rudy Giuliani. But similarities with the Bush agenda are a serious red flag in my book. Obama-ites: Care to defend your candidate in the comments section?

DOES IT FEEL LIKE POLITICS IS AT A BREAKING POINT?

Headshot of Editor in Chief of Mother Jones, Clara Jeffery

It sure feels that way to me, and here at Mother Jones, we’ve been thinking a lot about what journalism needs to do differently, and how we can have the biggest impact.

We kept coming back to one word: corruption. Democracy and the rule of law being undermined by those with wealth and power for their own gain. So we're launching an ambitious Mother Jones Corruption Project to do deep, time-intensive reporting on systemic corruption, and asking the MoJo community to help crowdfund it.

We aim to hire, build a team, and give them the time and space needed to understand how we got here and how we might get out. We want to dig into the forces and decisions that have allowed massive conflicts of interest, influence peddling, and win-at-all-costs politics to flourish.

It's unlike anything we've done, and we have seed funding to get started, but we're looking to raise $500,000 from readers by July when we'll be making key budgeting decisions—and the more resources we have by then, the deeper we can dig. If our plan sounds good to you, please help kickstart it with a tax-deductible donation today.

Thanks for reading—whether or not you can pitch in today, or ever, I'm glad you're with us.

Signed by Clara Jeffery

Clara Jeffery, Editor-in-Chief

We Recommend

Latest

Sign up for our newsletters

Subscribe and we'll send Mother Jones straight to your inbox.

Get our award-winning magazine

Save big on a full year of investigations, ideas, and insights.

Subscribe

Support our journalism

Help Mother Jones' reporters dig deep with a tax-deductible donation.

Donate