On October 11, Governor Christie endorsed “moderate” Mitt Romney for the Republican nomination for president in New Hampshire. A couple of hours later, Christie and Romney held a national teleconference for supporters.
As a Ron Paul supporter, I dialed in anyway to hear Romney and Christie hoping to hear some great insight by our governor about the man he wants to occupy the White House. Instead, Romney began the teleconference by making a few platitudinous remarks, did not take any questions from anyone on the call, and then turned the session over to Christie to answer questions from listeners around the country.
Christie stated once again what a nice guy Romney is, what a successful businessman he has been, and what a “great leader” for the country he would be if he were elected president. In other words, Christie did not indicate any of Romney’s positions that would actually be good for the American people. As far as Christie is concerned, Romney deserves the GOP presidential nomination because he could defeat Obama in 2012…maybe.
If Christie’s support of Romney is based primarily on the few remarks I heard him make during the teleconference, then the New Jersey governor has hitched his wagon to a very shallow presidential campaign. Which leads me to wonder has Chris Christie has read any of Mitt Romney’s positions on U.S. foreign policy, a policy dedicated to nation building, a non Republican party position if there ever was one, and military intervention, which is causing untold collateral damage in the “war on terror” in the Middle East, creating more anti-American sentiment in the region and draining valuable from our economy?
If Christie is unaware of the consequences of our interventionist foreign policies, he immediately should read Christopher Preble’s analysis of Romney’s foreign policy pronouncements. Preble, vice president for defense and foreign policy studies at the Cato Institute, wrote:
GOP front runner Mitt Romney is pushing a shortsighted and costly plan to boost his national security credentials. In a series of speeches and policy pronouncements…, Romney promised to dedicate at least four percent of the nation’s economic output to the military’s base budget, increase naval shipbuilding by two thirds, expand funding for national missile defense, and grow the active duty ranks by 100,000. Romney’s intention to shower so much money on the Pentagon — on top of the huge increases of the past decade — will compound the nation’s strategic problems, as well as its fiscal ones.
Preble also writes, “According to Romney, such expenses are necessary because the security of other countries is, and should be, the primary concern for American taxpayers and troops (emphasis added). U.S. troops, Romney claims, must maintain a constant watch in every corner of the world, and must be poised to stop conflicts before they occur. He, like President Obama and Hillary Clinton, believes that this global posture reassures U.S. allies, who might otherwise be tempted to defend themselves.”
In short, “moderate” Romney wants U.S. taxpayers to support an unending global military commitment, the same policy John McCain touted in his ignominious defeat by Barack Obama in 2008. Chris Christie’s endorsement of Romney leads me to believe that the New Jersey governor also wants the American people to pay indefinitely for the military defense of other nations. If so, then Christie has no clue about the failed foreign policies of the Bush-Obama years and the financial crisis we face at home, some of which is caused by the trillions of dollars that have been spent on the military-industrial complex during the past ten years.
Chris Christie was right to drop out of the presidential race, because he said he is not ready to be president. However, by endorsing Mitt Romney for president, Christie revealed he wants the former “moderate” governor of Massachusetts to continue the failed interventionist polices of the federal government.
Murray Sabrin is professor of finance at Ramapo College and blogs at www. MurraySabrin.com