Election 2008

LOS ANGELES – The sprawling coastal megapolis of Southern California continues to battle fires in its arid chaparral-filled hillsides, so for the moment the local focus is not on politics or elections but on disaster relief and providing shelter for a half million displaced residents. But Hurricane Katrina proved that a botched relief effort can have enormous repercussions on national politics and even international relations. As the President visits the disaster area tomorrow, accompanied by Governor Schwarzenegger, comparisons with Katrina will be hard to avoid. Both men are oddly in the background of the 2008 elections landscape – the unpopular Bush shunned by Republican candidates to replace him, Schwarzenegger a victim of his foreign birth. Amidst the natural tragedy, political ironies are inescapable: Schwarzenegger has a “Giuliani moment” but can’t run for higher office while President Bush, learning from Katrina, will be faulted for treating San Diego better than New Orleans.

A visitor to Los Angeles is struck by this region’s Hispanic character and complexion and, along with it, the salience of the Hispanic vote in next year’s election. Bush did well with the Hispanic voters in 2000 and 2004, but this is one part of the electorate whose sympathies next year are hard to predict. The first Hispanic candidate, Bill Richardson, has run an oddly listless race. Non-Hispanic politicians tread carefully while, behind the scenes, many are preoccupied with the immigration issue. The Internet was awash yesterday with warnings about Senator Reid’s maneuvers in the Senate on the so-called “DREAM” legislation to grant citizenship to the younger generation of foreign born (illegal) residents. Lou Dobbs, on CNN last night, was particularly strident, accusing both parties of “pandering” to the Hispanic community.

Immigration, of course, has a foreign policy dimension, as President Bush’s speech on Cuba today in Washington illustrates. A Cuban reaching Florida’s shores gets legal sanctuary, a Mexican fleeing poverty and chaos becomes an illegal immigrant in California. Austrian-born immigrant Arnold Schwarzenegger, watching from the election sidelines, probably has more than a few thoughts on the subject, as he ponders the Constitutional provision that keeps him out of the race.

On Thursday Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney, while campaigning in South Carolina, announced his belief that the United Nations had been “an extraordinary failure of late,” and went on to call for a “coalition of free nations” to take its place (mult). His comments play to a distrust among some conservatives of the U.N. and international institutions in general, but also draws attention to his somewhat wanton—relatively speaking—foreign policy credentials.

These days, Romney is employing many tactics that cater to social and religious conservatives; disputing the need for a United Nations is only the most recent. Romney lags behind in polls among Republicans nationwide, although he stands in first place in South Carolina. Recently he’s won endorsements from key social and religious conservatives, including Bob Jones III, the grandson of the religious leader and former head of Bob Jones University. Romney barely edged out a victory in Saturday’s Family Research Council straw poll, in which he won a plurality among those present (at the Washington Hilton in D.C.), but received a sorry total of 99 votes online to Mike Huckabee’s 488. Romney has yet to become the darling of religious conservatives, but he certainly is trying.

On Thursday, Romney proposed that the U.S. lead a “coalition of the free nations of the world” in lieu of lending support to the United Nations, particularly to her human rights arm, the UN Human Rights Council. After his comments aired, a spokesman for the campaign clarified that the candidate was suggesting that the US pull financial support from the Council, from which the U.S., of course, already abstains (the Human Rights Council has made pointed comments about Israel in the past, and is also responsible for the review of members’ compliance with the Geneva Conventions and the Convention Against Torture, among others). Whether this was an error on the campaign’s part or simply a misspeak, is to be determined.

As one might have guessed, liberal internationalist voices were furious. FP’s Passport blog had these harsh words. Bloggers at UN Dispatch are glad that other candidates, namely Democrat Bill Richardson, have the experience to counter Romney (Richardson is a former ambassador to the U.N.). What these authors do not address, however, are the possible benefits Romney’s pronouncement can have to his campaign.

His opponents, mainly Giuliani and McCain, have prominent backgrounds in foreign affairs. Voters, especially Republican primary voters, know that it was Giuliani who was New York’s mayor in September of 2001 and that McCain was once a guest at the Hanoi Hilton. Mitt Romney’s foreign policy experience does not match up. As a former governor of Massachusetts, much of his international experience comes from his time as CEO of Bain Capital, a private equity firm, and from managing the 2002 Salt Lake City Olympics. It’s likely that Romney’s comments were targeted to boost his appeal among conservatives, though foreign policy this election is a delicate arena. It would serve Romney to tread softly.