| by B.Raman
( October 23, 2012, Chennai, Sri
Lanka Guardian) The third and the last US Presidential debate, a fortnight
before the polling day, was held on the morning of October 23,2012 (Indian
Standard Time).
2. It was supposed to have been
devoted almost exclusively to foreign policy, but economic issues kept
intruding into the debate quite often and sometimes in a substantive manner.
3.Even before the debate, it was
known that Mr.Mitt Romney, the Republican challenger, is weak on foreign policy
issues. He did remarkably well in the first debate which was totally devoted to
economic and social issues. He, therefore, kept bringing in economic issues in
context and out of context and President Barack Obama found himself forced to
react to him in kind.
4. On purely foreign policy
issues, Mr.Obama did much better than Mr.Romney, but even then he could not
cross the 50 per cent mark in terms of support from the sample voters ( 48 per
cent) polled by the CNN after the debate.
5. After the conclusion of all
the three debates, it is evident that while Mr.Romney did overwhelmingly better
than Mr.Obama in the first debate on the economic issues, Mr.Obama did better
than Mr.Romney in the second and third
debates devoted to a mix of the economic and foreign policy issues----but not
overwhelmingly so. The election campaign seems to be moving slowly in favour of
Mr.Obama but not yet in a decisive manner.
6. The Republican camp has
reasons to be disappointed by the performance of Mr.Romney in the second and third debates.
Mr.Romney is bruised, but not yet beaten beyond recovery.
7.It was evident that both the
candidates came to the debate with the belief that foreign policy issues may
not be crucial in influencing the as yet undecided voters on the polling day.
In their calculation, it is economic issues that will influence their
preferences. Both the candidates were, therefore, looking for an opportunity to
bring in the state of the US economy even while debating the state of the
world. As a result, the debate became a bit repetitive and stale.
8. While discussing China, one
would have expected them to dwell on questions such as the rapid modernisation
of the Chinese Armed Forces, the possible threats to freedom of navigation from
the Chinese Navy, China’s cyber and space warfare capabilities etc.
9. Surprisingly, none of these
questions were raised in a substantive manner. Instead, they focussed on
China’s perceived currency manipulation, its continued violation of
intellectual property rights and the threat posed to the US industries from
their Chinese counterparts. This showed that while purely foreign policy issues
like West Asia, Iran, and the Af-Pak
decisions preoccupy their minds, the impact of foreign policy on the
state of the economy was an equally worrisome issue. The spectre of a worsening
economy came in the way of the formulation of a clear vision---whether in
respect of economic or foreign policies.
10. When the three debates are
taken as whole, it is clear that a fortnight before the polling day, the
campaign is shaping up to be a contest between the lack-lustre record of an
incumbent President and the lack-lustre policy vision of his challenger.
11.This has been a lack-lustre
election campaign---with no exciting vision for the future articulated by
either Mr.Obama or Mr.Romney. What they were debating was not how they would
usher in a brave new world, but how they would better manage the same old world
that they have inherited. In the absence of exciting new ideas and new visions
for the future, an incumbent even with a lack- lustre record may do better than
a lack-lustre challenger, who tries to play it safe and is not a risk-taker.
12. There is no reason for us to
feel disappointed that India did not figure in the debate even once. Even the
European Union, Japan, South Korea, the ASEAN and Australia did not figure even
in passing. This is because these are areas of future opportunities for US
policy-making. Today’s debate was mostly about areas of present concern to the
US.
13. This may please be read in
continuation of my article of October 7,2012, titled “Romney’s Ambivalence onIndia”.
(The writer is Additional Secretary (retd),
Cabinet Secretariat, Govt. of India, New Delhi, and, presently, Director,
Institute For Topical Studies, Chennai, and Associate of the Chennai Centre For
China Studies. E-mail: seventyone2@gmail.com
Twitter @SORBONNE75)
 The third and the last US Presidential debate, a fortnight before the...){kind=link}