Foreign policy: Romney and Obama

Sure, our economy has stayed in the toilet and even the magic words from the administration celebrating the upturn hasn't actually created a significant upturn. (Wow!)
 
But "fixing the mess" that is supposedly due to conservative politics, was just one of 300+ items on Obama's agenda.
 
So it's important to remember that Obama was mostly hired because his name and face would cause every knee to bow and every tongue confess across the world.  (The Europe Union swooned and genuflected.)  He was going to transform foreign policy with identity politics.  After all, he wasn't entirely raised as an American.
 
Who could have predicted that we were heading back to the days of Carter?
 
Enter Romney.  Romney and foreign policy?  Well, our unbiased media buzzed with British tweets about "Mitt the twit" after he dared to comment on their Olympics debacle as a former organizer of the Olympics.  Why if Mitt were elected, he might give the Queen of England an iPod with the best of Mitt's speeches.  Wait, sorry, I'm confused... that already happened, but it was Obama(!) that already did that.  Remember that story going viral?  No?

Is Militarism Inherently Conservative?

Don't ask why, but I was listening to KPFK on the way home.  It must've been The Socialist Hour--because it was a bunch of socialists complaining about how--ok, brace yourself--the Democratic Party has been steadily moving to the Right for several decades.  Wow. Just wow.
       
I did find something to agree with them on:  Obama's record on The Patriot Act  (the revision of which the ACLU reports has an interpretation that is undisclosed by the most transparent administration ever *), drone use, civilian casualties, assassinations, challenge of the War Powers Act, use of anti-terrorist powers to spy on civilians for other reasons, ramping up power in the TSA, and unilateral involvement (in terms of separation of powers, not in terms of the U.N.) does not reflect a reticence to wield the sword.  It is, dare I say, Nixonian.
[Update:  Government internet surveillance may be getting a leg-up again through Executive Order.]
 
Where I disagree with them is on their notion that wielding military might is a particularly conservative idea.  It's true that today's conservatives are more likely to support a strong military than our liberal counterparts.  This attitude grew out of the violence on our home turf (see the movie J. Edgar for a blast from the past) from Marxists, pro-labor terrorists, and communists as well as the growth of several social experiments in Europe that turned into complete government seizures of economic and political (is there a difference?) power all in the name of the working class people, whether they were called communism or fascism.  But exercising military might (at home or abroad) was not against early 20th century Progressivism.  In fact, having military power decentralized in militias rather than a national (Imperial!) force was an Anti-Federalist notion that would find a home in the conservative distrust of government.  And Democrat presidents have certainly not been opposed to war for most of the 20th century.

I would go so far...