Is U.S. leadership bankrupting America?
One area where there was firm agreement between both Mitt Romney and Barack Obama in last night's debate was the notion that America must lead the world and, relatedly, that the U.S. could not adequately lead the world with an economy in the doldrums.
Not once did either candidate consider whether U.S. leadership itself had contributed to the poor American balance sheet.
This is a telling myopia.
Consider some of the actions taken in the name of U.S. leadership, such as the war in Iraq and the continued nation building in Afghanistan. Imagine the money "invested" in Iraq and Afghanistan since 2003 having been diverted to any domestic initiative (name one: tax cuts, research, paying down the debt, infrastructure or simply saved for a rainy day - you know, like a massive financial crisis requiring billions in stimulus to escape from) and it's obvious that dialing back America's interventionist posture would result in cost savings.
There is, obviously, a line at which the cost-savings recouped by retrenchment are outweighed by the costs in insecurity. But it's telling that both candidates seemed to feel a real urgency in fixing the economy just so the U.S. would not have to abandon a leadership role.
(AP Photo)
