Mr. Romney has made some of these points, and we would not expect him to re-argue them all, politics be damned; obviously a majority of Americans do not share our views on a number of them. But he should be presenting a broad, positive vision of how and where he would lead the United States in the world. If he thinks Mr. Obama is betting on and therefore accelerating the decline of U.S. leadership, don’t just call him nasty names (“Jimmy Carter,” for example), but explain to the American people why U.S. leadership is sustainable and necessary in the coming decades.

Instead, there have been too many cheap shots and miscues that have only called attention to Mr. Romney’s inexperience in foreign affairs. This week’s accusation that the Obama administration sympathizes with rioters called to mind Mr. Romney’s over-the-top attack in May when U.S. officials were in the midst of delicate negotiations in Beijing to win freedom for human rights lawyer Chen Guangcheng. “If these reports are true, this is a dark day for freedom and it’s a day of shame for the Obama administration,” Mr. Romney said, shortly before Mr. Chen flew to New York City.

His jeering at Russia has seemed unbecoming a great power (“Under my administration . . . Mr. Putin will see a little less flexibility and more backbone”), and his threats of a trade war with China are both unconvincing and unproductive. He appealed to the worst in the American people when he failed to stand up for religious tolerance by condemning the bigoted anti-Muslim movie trailer that incited riots this week, even as he rightly condemned the violence itself.

The Post suggests, instead, that Romney stick closer to saying things like this when discussing foreign policy issues: “The idea of using something that some people consider sacred and then parading that out a negative way is simply inappropriate and wrong. And I wish people wouldn’t do it.” Appeal to our best, not our worst. It’s not that hard, Mitt!