Barack Obama’s popularity among European political elites is understandable given their similar views on both domestic and foreign policy and an unfortunate common interest in subjugating America’s role in the world to global institutions like the United Nations.
When I spoke at conferences in Germany and Switzerland in the years immediately following the invasion of Iraq and the removal of Saddam Hussein from power, the anti-American sentiment among European political and some business leaders was overwhelming.
It was no wonder, then, that Europeans would greet Mr. Obama with cheers – literally – as he campaigned for President in 2008. After all, Mr. Obama was given his chance against presumptive nominee Sen. Hillary Clinton as a result of Clinton’s vote in favor of authorizing the Iraq invasion.
Fast forward four years, however, and the zeal for Mr. Obama has diminished. No doubt most Europeans would still favor Mr. Obama over Republican Mitt Romney, but the enthusiasm for Mr. Obama is no longer there.
This was obvious at the 10th International Political Communications Conference hosted by the Konrad Adenauer Foundation in Berlin this week. When I addressed the same conference in 2008, the skepticism for Republicans and excitement about Mr. Obama was clear even among a center-right (by European standards) audience.
On Sunday evening I had the opportunity to debate John Hurson, a former Democrat leader in the Maryland legislature and past president of the National Conference of State Legislatures, on the topic of the 2012 presidential campaign. The sentiment among the participants was much more balanced than in 2008.
Even among Europeans, whose political “center” is to the left of America’s center, there is disappointment with Mr. Obama, although for differing reasons. The German news magazine “Der Spiegel” in June featured a photo of the President on the cover with the headline “Schade” (pity), followed by a lengthy story detailing how Mr. Obama failed to live up to his promises to the left.
Americans are disappointed in Mr. Obama for different reasons, not the least of which is an economic policy that Republicans correctly assert has blunted our recovery at home while projecting weakness abroad.
While domestic policies dominate politics in the United States, foreign observers base their judgment to a larger extent on American foreign policy. This explains why the Iraq invasion at the outset was so popular at home while Europeans overwhelmingly disapproved.
Yet, Mr. Obama’s foreign policy record is a train wreck. Iran is closer to a nuclear capability than ever before. Mr. Obama’s slow “lead from behind” approach to Col. Gadhafi in Libya last year resulted in a longer and costlier conflict in terms of lives than necessary. No support was offered to the “Green” uprising against the mullah’s in Tehran in 2009. And while all of our allies in the region and pushing for Syria’s brutal dictator, Bashar Al Assad, to go, Mr. Obama seems indifferent.
America’s sustained domestic prosperity is tied to stability abroad, which does not happen on its own. Ronald Reagan understood this, and his strategy of “peace through strength” was the right one when confronting the Soviet Union in the 1980’s, and is the right one today when faced with terrorism, rogue states, and an Iran bent on acquiring nuclear weapons.
Mr. Romney is committed to a Reaganite foreign policy, while Mr. Obama continues to appear disengaged from many of today’s most vexing challenges.
Almost four years ago Mr. Obama began taking America down a path of “change.” If the European response is any indication, the confidence in Mr. Obama’s leadership has been compromised not only at home, but abroad as well.