Ian Bremmer

By Ian Bremmer
The views expressed are his own.

After yet another GOP debate where foreign policy took a near-total backseat to economic and domestic policy, Mitt Romney is in the catbird seat for the nomination. He even locked up the endorsement of Tea Party AND Republican machine favorite, New Jersey Governor Chris Christie. Romney’s only problem: it’s October 2011. Not one primary has yet taken place. Romney will have to return to his foreign policy platform to expand it, should he be fortunate enough to make it to the general election. And based on the speech he gave at The Citadel, we can already see that Mitt Romney intends to return to the American exceptionalism of the Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush eras.

For Romney, as for many politicians of both parties in decades past, the United States is not just a big and powerful country. Rather, it is the only country in the world that deserves superpower status. What’s unfortunate for Mitt and his all-star, Bush-heavy foreign policy team is that, these days, that line of thinking is more nostalgic than realistic. (By the way, though Romney was almost bombastic at times, calling Iran’s leaders “suicidal fanatics,” his actual policies are unlikely to reflect or adopt that tone — at least not with his foreign policy team as constituted now.) The idea of the U.S. as the leader of the free world is at a post-WWII nadir. However, that’s not because some other country, like China, has risen to fill the vacuum. No, the fault is wholly our own.

In fact, right now there’s a global debate about whether the U.S. really deserves its superpower mantle, given the political and economic issues of recent years that have unquestionably eroded its leadership position. It’s helpful to compare the two camps:

The exceptionalist camp believes that America’s pole position comes from more than its economic and political power– that it comes from our set of values and worldviews, which no other global power possesses. These types of thinkers believe that no matter how powerful, for example, China, becomes, it can never truly take up the role of global leader, because its policies are fundamentally incompatible with the Western world’s.

Those of us who traveled in the Soviet Union prior to its collapse or in Eastern Europe soon afterwards, saw that dissidents and newly liberated peoples there thought about the U.S. in a different way, because America stood for a set of ideas that represented the gold standard of what free people could aspire to achieve. The non-exceptionalist camp believes less in the U.S. as the most influential country in the world, seeing that influence as having seriously eroded of late. Specifically, the events of the 2000 election, in which the Supreme Court took a vote divided among party lines to place George W. Bush into office, is seen by many as the beginning of the end of the era of U.S. infallibility abroad.

By Ian Bremmer
The opinions expressed are his own.

The European Union now faces a sovereign debt crisis that threatens the viability of the entire experiment, one that looms over the economies of even the sturdiest EU countries. Fair or not, debt crises in Greece and Portugal, and the spectre of them in Spain and Italy, have markets questioning whether the eurozone remains viable.

There is some good news. Everyone in Europe, from Germany’s state-level officials to Members of the EU Parliament, takes this issue seriously. The time for kicking the can down the road has passed. The bad news is that the only long-term solution to the crisis is the one that may be a bridge too far for most of the major players: a fiscal union that controls spending across all of the EU’s economies. Fiscal union might sound like a politically impossible concept, but market leaders, like Pimco’s Mohammed El-Erian, are urging Europe to at least consider, ”a unified European balance sheet,” as a logical and badly needed extension of the currency union. To join the euro, governments surrendered control of their monetary policy. Surrendering control of fiscal policy amounts to an enormous psychological step.

A little background: EU member states still control their own spending — and their indebtedness. The EU specifies spending and debt limits for its member nations, but can’t really enforce its guidelines. That’s why Greece was able to hide the problem that too many of its citizens have evaded income taxes for decades, despite the government providing them substantial social benefits. This problem created the country’s debt crisis. Local control of fiscal policy also allowed Portugal to base its budgets on wildly optimistic economic growth projections for years. That’s why the debt crisis spread out of control — every country kept its own books, but few of the strong countries realized that to protect the euro, they would have to bail out weaker countries that rode the economic boom for years—including up to and during the global financial crisis and its aftermath.