- By Daniel W. Drezner
Daniel W. Drezner is professor of international politics at the Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy at Tufts University and a senior editor at The National Interest. Prior to Fletcher, he taught at the University of Chicago and the University of Colorado at Boulder. Drezner has received fellowships from the German Marshall Fund of the United States, the Council on Foreign Relations, and Harvard University. He has previously held positions with Civic Education Project, the RAND Corporation, and the Treasury Department.
Following last night’s presidential debate on foreign policy, I’d like to offer three quick apologies:
1) To those readers playing my debate drinking game — sorry, you got pretty hammered, didn’t you? Sorry about that — I forgot that the one thing conservatives love about the United Nations is the 2002 Arab Human Development Report. When Romney name-checked that, a lot of bottles had to be downed.
2) To those readers who read my quick take in the New York Times on Mitt Romney’s pivot to moderation during last night’s debate — there’s one crucial word missing. When I said, "Romney’s sotto voce message was that he would be a hot-headed, trigger-happy cowboy – like the Last Republican President Who Shall Not Be Named." I meant to say "Romney’s sotto voce message was that he would not be a hot-headed, trigger-happy cowboy – like the Last Republican President Who Shall Not Be Named."
3) Finally, to those readers who watched the whole debate — I’m sorry, there wasn’t much of a foreign policy debate, was there? Both candidates pivoted towards the economy frequently. When they stayed on foreign policy, Mitt Romney kept agreeing with Barack Obama. I nearly spit out my drink when Romney said the Afghanistan surge had "worked." Methinks he must have read this post from last month.
So — to repeat — I’m sorry.
Here endeth my apology tour.