A recovery theme in Romney-Obama presidential debate

In the presidential debate on foreign policy, both Mitt Romney and President Obama cited a need to rejuvenate the economy if the US is to be a world leader. But that choice need not be either-or.

AP Photo
Republican presidential nominee Mitt Romney and President Barack Obama shake hands after the third presidential debate Oct. 22 in Boca Raton, Fla.

Other nations that rely on America or look up to it didn’t get to ask a question at Tuesday’s presidential debate on foreign policy. But if they had, it would probably have been this:

“So, just how long will it take for the United States to pull out of its economic pit stop?”

The question is relevant because both Mitt Romney and Barack Obama turned a debate on foreign affairs toward one on the need for America to rebuild its strength. They differ on how to do it. But they each cited a priority in national rejuvenation.

“It’s very hard for us to project leadership around the world when we’re not doing what we need to do [at home],” said President Obama.

“For us to be able to promote ... principles of peace requires us to be strong. And that begins with a strong economy here at home,” said Mr. Romney.

Left unsaid – as the rest of the world probably noticed – was any hint of when this US sabbatical might end and America resume the role of a vibrant world leader. When the jobless rate hits 4 percent? When the national debt is zero?

Or perhaps never – because this economic retreat signals a long escape for the US from the world and its woes?

The two presidential candidates, of course, did not promise to retreat from standing responsibilities to others, such as treaty allies. Obama calls the US “the indispensable nation.” Romney calls it “the exceptional nation.”

But an inward-looking US is hoping for a break. It wants to recover from wars, recession, overspending, and a deep political divide.

Regular rituals of rest are built into any society, whether it’s called the Sabbath, spring break, vacation, a nap, R&R, or, for American presidents, a weekend retreat at Camp David. In the Hebrew Bible, God rested on the seventh day, while, for Christians, Jesus offered rest to all who are weary and burdened.

But there is also another kind of rest, even for a nation. It is a kind of calm action in giving to others without depleting one’s self. It has been seen in historical heroes like Florence Nightingale, Mother Teresa, and Martin Luther King. When people – or a people – live up to their ideals and share them, they both do good and are good to themselves.

This sort of resting in action comes more easily for the US when it is promoting the universal values on which it was founded. Sometimes that means doing good, as with the US intervention in Libya to prevent a massacre. Other times it means simply being good, as in running a healthy market-based economy or living up to democratic standards.

In other words, America doesn’t really need to choose between doing good for itself and helping the world. It needs to refine its role so as to rejuvenate itself in the assisting of others. That needs to be done in the choices made on military spending, foreign aid, trade policy, and types of alliances.

OPINION: Romney-Obama debate brings it back home

When ideals are lined up well, they replenish America.

If the ideals aren’t a basis for action, such as the way the war in Iraq was conducted or the White House virtual silence during Iran’s democratic uprising, America can be depleted, both in resources and stature.

This election shouldn’t be about a zero-sum choice between US interests and its leadership in the world. The economic respite that Americans seek may lie in striking a new balance in its ideals.

You've read  of  free articles. Subscribe to continue.

Dear Reader,

About a year ago, I happened upon this statement about the Monitor in the Harvard Business Review – under the charming heading of “do things that don’t interest you”:

“Many things that end up” being meaningful, writes social scientist Joseph Grenny, “have come from conference workshops, articles, or online videos that began as a chore and ended with an insight. My work in Kenya, for example, was heavily influenced by a Christian Science Monitor article I had forced myself to read 10 years earlier. Sometimes, we call things ‘boring’ simply because they lie outside the box we are currently in.”

If you were to come up with a punchline to a joke about the Monitor, that would probably be it. We’re seen as being global, fair, insightful, and perhaps a bit too earnest. We’re the bran muffin of journalism.

But you know what? We change lives. And I’m going to argue that we change lives precisely because we force open that too-small box that most human beings think they live in.

The Monitor is a peculiar little publication that’s hard for the world to figure out. We’re run by a church, but we’re not only for church members and we’re not about converting people. We’re known as being fair even as the world becomes as polarized as at any time since the newspaper’s founding in 1908.

We have a mission beyond circulation, we want to bridge divides. We’re about kicking down the door of thought everywhere and saying, “You are bigger and more capable than you realize. And we can prove it.”

If you’re looking for bran muffin journalism, you can subscribe to the Monitor for $15. You’ll get the Monitor Weekly magazine, the Monitor Daily email, and unlimited access to CSMonitor.com.