Romney apparently convinced enough people that he didn't suck last night. Well, that is because Americans:
(a) don't care about foreign policy;
(b) don't know history;
(c) don't know geography;
(d) all of the above.
It is well established that foreign policy tends not to sway the voter. So, perhaps voters might not care that much so last night's Mitt-tastrophe. So, it does not count for much.
Or, it could be that Americans are easily impressed by historical comparisons--US Navy is now smaller than it was in 1916. So glad that Obama spiked that stupid comparison with his horses and bayonets line. Yes, we still have horses and yes we still have bayonets, but when we measure American power, these are not relevant today. Romney could be a bit smarter and point to the reality that a shrinking US Navy raises a question about the imbalance between capabilities and commitments. That we either need to expand capabilities or shrink commitments (I vote for the latter). But the 1916 Navy line is just stupid squared.
But Americans also must be ignorant about geography given Romney's line about Iran needing Syria to get to the sea:
(H/t to http://www.ericachenoweth.com for tweeting the link to this). Iran may need Syria but for access to the Med? Depends on relations with Egypt, does it not? Just dumb. But if you don't know that the Persian Gulf is next to Iran (and that Iran used to be known as Persia), then you might forget that Iran is already next to a heap of sea. I guess all those previous naval confrontations recently and in the 1980s did not jog any memories.
Of course, my vote is for all of the above. Damn.
The song is wrong--not such a wonderful world it would be: