on the campaign trail in 2008, grant park, and inauguration, he kept talking about a planet in peril. how that had to be a priority. it was not a priority at the beginning of his administration. health care was a priority at the beginning of his administration. the climate issue -- faded, and ultimately failed to get anywhere. now, obviously, that was a -- a joint mistake on the part of the handling, both of the executive branch and the -- and the legislative branch. so the big question about him on that issue, and on, on, he had some success on reducing the nuclear peril particularly with the new s.t.a.r.t. treaty with the russians. but no such success, of course, on the test ban. so the big question will not be what his intentions are, but his ability to deliver on the intentions. with regard to -- governor romney, we have to see what his

priorities are. and hear how he lays them out. and then take him seriously if, in either case, if he lays out priorities that align with those of us as individual citizens, then he will be a very strong candidate for the presidency. but there is one other point. and it goes back to the economy. and it goes back to the pogo factor. what is extremely important for our ability to lead in the world, both by example, and also by having the resources necessary to back up our soft power with hard power and of course leader shuch int eer of institutions if we get our own economy back in shape. that means addressing, restoring fiscal sanity to the national household and doing something about the deficit. a big question about each of the candidates as they go into the

homestretch, which one of you has a credible plan to do that and the four letter word, tax is going to have to come up, at some point, in that. and, then their junkmedgment wi have to be made. will they have political will to drive those, use forward and will they be able to have, get enough support from the congress which takes you back to what is the valid part about your hypothesis. >> any interest in, on, do you want to respond to what he said or the hypothesis. i have a question up here in the third row. >> thank you. i'm with the friends committee on national legislation. i am struck by the conversation not including the word afghanistan or much talk until now, mention of hard power. and i know bruce, you, you address a little bit the balance or imbalance between hard power and military power and civilian power. but it seems to me that -- one

of the areas of not enough light and not enough alternative approaches, coming out of this campaign, and the rhetoric on, on the campaign trail its the question of what admiral mike mullen called overmilitarization, and lack o f diplomatic solutions we need. the discussion has baeen about the real power that requires diplomat uk solutiic solutions. is it just that on the campaign trail they speak to domestic politic thaerz n polit polit politics? or is there any hope that -- that a next -- presidency, whether it is obama, or, romney, can help shift that balance and get out of this overmilitarization cycle of u.s. foreign policy which relates to

the congressional question that was raised as well given the budgeting challenges and where the congress goes? and just a final question about, a relate add summd assumption, no light between the two sides, its about the question of u.s. exceptionalism. and i think until we can get out of what i think is an outdated idea for today's world of u.s. exceptionalism, you know being the grounding for our u.s. foreign policy. we are going to be stuck in not having the right solution to the world's problems. its there any hope for getting to a different approach to how we see our place in the world? >> let's take the question, militarization/foreign policy first? >> one of the central arguments of my paper, either president has to invest more in the diplomatic tool. it doesn't necessarily, translate into increase funding for state department, right. but investing heavily in the diplomatic tool and capabilities we need to do exact plea whly w

talked about knitting together new alliance and arrangements. this has become a partisan issue. in the sense you see republican -- congressional action to defund, defund, to reduce state funding or block increases in state funding et cetera. in fairness, the previous administration in its second term also tried to increase funding to state and to bolster state, et cetera. i think this becomes an important issue. do we have the right tools of government to, to forge together new alliances, to manage issues in a much more complex stage. i don't think we have a very honest conversation about this. it becomes should we increase, decrease the budget of state department question. one piece of the puzzle. i don't think state is currently composed. staffed. trained, is the right tool for, for managing the world. we need serious reform in state department in terms of who we have there, what backgrounds they come from, what languages they speak, what training they

get. but i do think the emphasis you make and the need for -- for an emphasis on diplomacy. diplomacy isn't a soft issue. it is a question of managing alie yaa aala acollective action, using force is not diplomatic. our use of force is military. i absolutely take your point. we don't know which of the two presidents would be more likely. i think the congressional point is real here. i would say there are a lot of people around romney who understand this point. who understand the need for serious investment in diplomacy. there are also some around him who clearly don't. >> if you want to take up that or american exceptionalism question? >> i agree with you, the whole exceptionalism issue has gotten a little goofy. i mean, you know -- president obama gets off a helicopter and he is caught red-handed, he is a

declinist. and then, you know, a couple months go by. he says, no, no, i'm not, i'm reading, we are at brookings, are delighted the we look to read him too. he has been on the podium many times. by the way, these two, terrific books, are not die met ametrica opposed in their prescriptive implications. i notice in the speech, president obama gave at the air force academy, i guess a couple days ago, he went out of his way to do two things. one was to say this is an exceptional country. so i guess he covered himself on that. and the other was to say that in libya, nato its out there, leading from the front. thereby laying to rest forever, the -- the ryan lisel line towards the end of a new yorker piece, unattributed or, blind attributed to leading from behind.

but the serious point here, i think though is, we are an exception that country. we are an exceptional country. there is no country on earth that has the the convening power. there is no country on earth that has the the global military reach. or the diplomatic capacity -- again, on a global basis, that we have. and with that comes -- responsibility, obligation, and lots of opportunity. we're stuck with it. you want to jump in? >> yeah, the one thing i want to add -- it was interesting to me that you talked about investing in diplomacy. i would -- argue for investing in development as well. and there i think there is actually much less difference. one of great legacies of a former president, bush, was in fact his -- his focus on

development. he did quite a lot to raise the -- the -- the amounts of resources going into -- into u.s. development assistance, something that, president obama has also tried to do -- and secretary clinton, enormously. so i think in terms of the resources and the ability to -- to commit -- in countries like afghanistan to a long-term process of -- of support -- i think -- both will -- probably be able to, both make that commitment, and stand by it, hopefully, because that -- that certainly will be a necessary element of moving forward in any of the -- fragile states that have become so important a part of -- of u.s. diplomacy. >> interesting, you talked about

president obama and his sense of exceptionalism. the exceptionalism discussion was a major part of the republican primary campaign. mitt romney talked about it a lot. it is one of the main attack he's makes on president obama is about -- this issue. and whether, obama stands by it or whether he has apologize ford america. what do you think -- and this is open to anyone. given what was said in the republican campaign, and where you see romney talk about this, how does that affect his foreign policy as -- we go forward if he is the president in 2013. >> generally speaking, isaac, i think -- it will probably net out to much more harmony between what they're really saying and opposed to the way they're saying it and the accusatory way they're saying it when you got to the end. it goes back to what was bruce's original point.

and we'll just have to, see. i was interested, when -- when senator, marco rubio was here last month. and he is -- one of quite a number of -- up-and-coming republican political leaders who has talked about as a possible vice president. he gave a foreign policy speech. this lectern here. it was a -- very thoughtful speech. i don't want to ruin his chances for getting on the ticket. but it wasn't wildly different from a speech that i can imagine coming out of the department of state or even the -- even the white house. i mean, you know, making a few amendments in a come of lines in it. this itss a good thing. we have, i and others have expressed some dismay about the -- polarization of our politics and the breakdown in civil discourse. but i do think that there has

been a shaking out process that has gone on here. if you look at the -- the field of republican candidates. this is truly a nonpartisan comment. i am making it entire lowly abo the republicans. there were really two of those candidates who i think, many americans, including independents and some democrat whose were disappointed or disillusioned in their party this year could, could depending on where, where, the -- referring here to -- to -- to, ambassador/governor huntsman and to romney. that those two were by far the most centrist. and that's what the process delivered. which is a god thing. and now, let's see itch the process can continue this -- this business of reconciliation on the foreign policy, use because the really tough issues, facing the next president are going to be domestic and

economic. >> you want to say anything on this? >> that's well-said. >> all right. a question towards the back on the aisle here. microphone coming from the back. >> thank you. given the fact that -- >> sorry, could you i've dent tie yoursel -- identify yourself? >> robert werner. >> economic crisis, financial crisis, and that china could be, not going into a meltdown, ape very substantial slowdown, what do you think the responses might be and the differences might be between obama and the second term and romney with respect to those, this, this very deteriorating financial situation? >> i will start. i think there is a very serious debate that its now going on -- about the -- about the best

route out of the -- out of the current crisis. and that debate is essentially on the getting the balance right between -- fiscal consolidation and what is called austerity, versus new, new growth programs. and -- i think that debate is being joined in europe. europe is not unified by any manner of means in terms of how it is going to -- you know where it is going to come out on that -- on that -- that balance. and i think in this country as well. the two parties are quite different in their positioning on this. china i think is -- rather different. china is indeed slowing down. china will almost certainly start to implement stimulus

measures both monetary and fiscal to try to take care of it. and at the end of the day, you know, chinese growth probably will slow down. but the probability of a very hard landing in china or if their growth rate is starting to approximate zero growth or 2% growth in the advanced countries still seems to be low. but certainly between the united states and europe. i think this is a -- a very active debate. and -- and based on different philosophies. about what generates -- growth in the short run. >> i want to take the question, use it to make a slightly different point about this. which is one of the things we are not talking about here yet is which president would do a better job at educating the american public about the change in the world that we live in. and the point from your question is this -- i mean, i think we begin to understand that our economy at this stage in history, rises or falls with the

global economy. the days in which our own production and our own consumption was sort of, isolated to us some extent from the patterns of the global economy are long gone. china slows down. europe slows down. we slow down. period. end of story. all right. china grows. europe grows. we grow. simple as that. but i don't think that that is -- deeply understood in the american public. and so -- the question then becomes -- which president can do a better job and change the world and what that means for us and what it means for wait we orient ourselves. here it is a tough call. i would say, so far, obama who clearly understands this reality has the not done that good a job at explaining this to the american public. it is a hard thing to explain. a hard argument to make. especially hard to make it during tough times. easier to make it during growth periods. with romney we don't know.

don't know if romney will end up coming across. could be a nixon to china element to romney here. but there could also be a well you are just one of the vain capitalists who profit while we lose jobs in michigan and whatever. we don't know what romney will be like in terms of communicating to the american public on these, use. certainly nothing in his campaign rhetoric that suggest that he is good at it. but presidents and campaigners are different. >> what is your answer to the question? >> just a thought that occurred to me in listening to bruce's very good answer. the, the one word summary i think of what a lot of us are saying and it's built into your question is interdependence. by the way, the chinese, fate of china's great experiment is, completely dependent on the health of the global economy. going to bruce's point. i think one reason that president obama who really gets it, on interdependence is not out there making this case is because in tough, economic

times, talking about interdependence makes you sound soft. and this is-- the perennial achilles heel, politically, of democrats. and democratic, candidates, for president. including -- incumbent president whose are seeking re-election. they don't want to look soft. and with, us feeling that, you know, the europeans are about to screw everything up. indians are taking our jobs. and the chinese are eating our lunch. so forth. so on. to say, an interdependent world. says, boy, you are not protecting us. that is a fundamental difference. a fundamental factor. i think -- the president -- there is, he has got no way around that. between now and the election. he has the got to find ways to talk about it that if they don't sound robust, at least sound very, very optimistic. that's why i recommend to all of you, just read the text of the

air force academy speech. it was reagan. morning in america. the sun is shining. we are going to be fine. but, i don't think the word -- exceptional appears in there. but not interdependent. >> i am curious given how much of the economic economic situat global economic situation is part of your paper and your thinking on this, the question bruce has posed here of which one of these candidates would be b better able to explain to the american public the situation that we're facing, what's your answer to that? >> i have found it interesting that on things like gas prices, which is a clear example of the interdependence. there's been this suggestion that it actually really does

depend on the president and there was some fascinating polls showing the way in which these views about the president's ability to control gas prices flip over time depending on who is in power. so it's not actually a matter of deeply held beliefs. it's a matter about communication to the american public. it does seem to me that is enormously important. i mean, the fact of the matter is not just in the united states but in europe the honesty of the conversations around economic problems is disappearing. and that's -- you know, it's part of the reason why the europeans haven't been able to solve their problem is because, you know, in germany they still have this view that all the greeks are lazy. greeks actually work probably

about 25% longer hours than germans. so these perceptions become very important in terms of the way in which economic policy ends up being formed and at the moment i think there's a real problem with the honesty with which that communication is happening. >> another question over here on the side. >> thank you. i'm with phoenix tv. i would like to talk about the issue of china. actually yesterday romney just released an ad on china and the white house responded quickly that, hey, we are tougher against china. so i was just curious whether china/beijing issue will intensify throughout the

campaign and whether either one elected will they fulfill their promises? and, also, today treasury just released exchange rate report and it claims that china's currency still significantly undervalued. although secretary geithner admits that chinese currency has actually appreciated 40%. so why the exchange rate still the issue during the campaign? thank you. >> before the friend president jumps in, we're running short on time, so if we could keep these answers short and get to one or two more questions. >> i would say, yes, the china bashing will intensify and let's count on chinese patience. we goet back to january, we'll e back to normal in how we handle

the currency exchange rate. >> you know, i think that this goes to some extent about the point i was trying to make about the facts of what's happening in terms of economics and the perceptions. u.s. exports to china have increased by about 50% cumulatively since 2008. chinese exports to the united states, u.s. imports from china in that same period have increased by about 20%. so for actually -- and this is a trend that's been there since about 2004 or so. when you look it at this in terms of growth rates, the u.s. is actually doing really well. last year the u.s. exports to china surpassed $100 billion. so the size of the bilateral

deficit is still quite substantial but what's actually happening is that trade on both sides is just going up. and that's probably been very beneficial for both countries. >> one thing i would add is you win elections in swing states and there's an unfortunate coincidence between where the swing states are and where manufacturing has been decima decimated, who loses from an integrated economy, et cetera. if you're in l.a., new york, miami, et cetera, globalization integration is okay. not so much in western pennsylvania. and so i do think the nature of the election campaign forces the f focus on the down sides of global integration whereas there's quite a lot going on that drives the good sides of investment and shared growth. >> a question in the middle on that side.

yep? >> thank you. my question is about the climate change, the arab swing. [ laughter ] what do you expect from barack obama or mitt romney to do in handling the changes, ongoing changes in egypt and middle east in particular and whether it's going to be just relying on security alliances or people or useful partnerships? thank you. >> well, one thing i think will come up quickly, it may come up before the election, is whether there are differences between the candidates on issues like syria. so far what you've seen in syria is the obama administration very careful about talking about the

potential for american military engagement and eat been criticized for that by some -- some parts of the republican party as well as some parts of the democratic party. and i think this is one of the interesting issues. there is a hawkish alliance, a human rights hawkish alliance that straddles the two parties. i don't know whether romney would behave differently in syria than obama has so far. i actually doubt it. i think that the idea we would sort of rush to military intervention is probably overplayed. more broadly, your question was broader than that. i think there are sort of fundamental tensions here and fundamental stakes and the ability to navigate what's coming is going to be a critical test of either president. i don't have a crystal ball here. i don't know if a strobe has more insight. it's heart to have a sense of this. one thing we haven't talked about, it will mat aerolot who it is romney or obama pick to be their national security advisers

and secretary of state in a second term or in romney's first term. there's a pretty wide cast of characters on the potential list for romney, and that will shape things quite a lot. whatever it is, i think these two we've been talking about, militarily of china but the turbulence in the arab spring will be defining futures of american foreign policy certainly through the next presidency. >> and you might put iran on the list, too. >> i would put iran on the list. >> i think in kcountries like egypt in particular taking an economic lens now is going to be important for both candidates. and the big challenge that will need to be addressed is that the real money and resources for helping countries in the arab world is likely to come from the

gulf and the question will be to what extent can those be merged with the support that can come in a variety of nongrant form but trade alliances, investment a alliances, et cetera, and from the multilateral institutions. if that -- if that combination can be effectively put together, then i think that there's a reasonable chance that the economic support packages for these countries can be quite useful. if that can't be put together, then i think you will be faced with a situation where there will be potentially significant economic risks and trying to forge security alliances with k countries that are having their own domestic economic problems i think we've seen in places like pakistan is a very, very difficult thing to sustain. >> we have time for one more if

the question is short and the answers are short. so right up here in the front. >> former state department. since a presidency is often defined by what the president achieves in his first year or so in office, let me ask you a question about priorities that each candidate might have not just based on campaign rhetoric but overall. and assuming, this is hypothetical, assuming that domestic and foreign policy constraints were not forbidden, what do you think obama and romney will most like to do in terms of their priorities early in the next administration? thank you. >> whoever wants to take this one, keep it short so we won't run over. >> short answer. either one of them the priority has to be fixing the problem that will not be fix this had