But even steeped in the knowledge of original sin, as he presumably is, Mr. Larison is frequently nonplused on the bottomless iniquity of the Republican Party. Here he is, for example, baffled by Mitt Romney’s vigorous denunciation of the Obama Administration’s “reset” of America’s relations with Russia:
The thinking seems to have been something like this: 1) the “reset” is a signature Obama initiative; 2) Romney is therefore against the “reset” no matter what; 3) if that isn’t enough of a reason, Romney is against the “reset” because it represents appeasement and weakness; 4) Russia only respects strength and resolve, so Romney will undo the “reset” to show that America is “strong.” There is no evidence that Russia would respond well to being hectored over its domestic political and legal systems, and there is even less evidence that the Russian government and Putin in particular would respond well to direct confrontation of the sort Romney’s adviser Richard Williamson endorsed yesterday. There is a great deal of evidence supporting the opposing view that confronting Russia in this manner causes Moscow to dig in, harden its positions, and react angrily and defensively. There doesn’t seem to be any practical goal that rejecting the “reset” is supposed to help achieve. It does seem to be a case of embracing confrontation for its own sake.
