Obama, North Korea, Gershwin: Why Clinton's 'Naive' Charge Is Even Stupider Today

Here's an irony for ya: Yesterday, the New York Philharmonic performed in Pyongyang, the Asian epicenter of the Axis of Evil. It was the selfsame day that Senators Obama and Clinton held their 20th debate.

In a previous dust-up -- back before The Narrowing when we had Kucinich and Gravel to liven things up -- Obama was attacked by Senator Clinton for his willingness to sit down with dictators who oppose the United States. She blasted him as jejune, puerile and naïve, asserting that she was too steely and experienced to let herself be manipulated for propaganda purposes by tyrants.

While that contretemps already seems like ancient election history -- our 24-second news cycle having already absorbed, in its amoeba-like fashion, New Hampshire flyers, Somali fashion statements, fairy tales, Lyndon Johnson and Jessie Jackson -- I want to return to the subject because the Philharmonic's appearance has vivified the issue.

By all accounts, the concert was a success and is already being compared to Leonard Bernstein's and the NY Phil's trip to Moscow in 1959 during the ice-age of the Cold War. Dvorjak, "An American In Paris," The Star Spangled banner and the Korean folk anthem "Arirang" were played. (I used to frequent a Korean restaurant on West 56th Street called Arirang. Who knew I was eating at the equivalent of the God Bless America wine bar?)

Afterwards, the North Korean audience gave a five-minute standing ovation, the musicians waved back and turned weepy, journalists swooned and suddenly we could hear ourselves mouthing the same platitudes about the North Koreans that we used to say about Russian Commies: they're people just like us, they love their kiddies too, if only we had more cultural exchanges we'd have a better chance at peace.

Now back to Senator Obama's willingness to sit down with Kim Jong-il. Essentially, what he was saying is that part of the role of the president of the United States is to act as a visible representative of the American people as well as the American government. That he views part of his future job as taking the heart, soul and strengths of the American people to the rest of the world. That the presidency is, institutionally and at its best, a vehicle for cultural exchange, a manifestation of the fact that while governments can be in violent disagreement, other channels of communication are necessary and useful.

Strained rhetorical comparisons -- "Would he have sat down with Hitler?" are just silly. Kim Jong-il has already shown himself to be bribeable; last year he took $250 million in exchange for shutting down his nuclear weapons program. And although there are some remaining issues around denuclearization, conversations are being held, there is a dialogue. (If you ask me, Jong-il could have gotten more when you consider that it costs around $250 million for each day of our Iraqi misadventure. And consider how expensive nuclear arms inspectors are -- all those steak dinners, penthouse suites, bomb-sniffing prostitutes.)

Kim Jong-il is an evil guy, for sure. He starves and imprisons and deadens the lives of his people. But make no mistake, his iron hand wasn't sanitized or velvetized by the proceedings. On the contrary. It was clear that the Korean schoolchildren who flanked Philharmonic members on stage -- and sang a Korean version of Jingle Bells -- weren't allowed to talk to the press. And, as the Boston Globe noted, "The finale was a song and dance number called "We are Faithful Only to General Kim Jong-il" that included lyrics such as "You make us happy. You safeguard our happiness". That kind of self-unaware dictator speak -- it sounds like a gloss on Mel Brooks -- isn't exactly a great brand statement for North Korea.

None of the proceedings, in fact, were good global PR for Mr. Jong-il; the media attention reminds the world that he is one of a shrinking band of crackpots. And that's clearly a collateral benefit of the trip, and further validation of the benefits that accrue to any efforts to crack the door on a tightly shut nation.

The truth is, Kim Jong-il is more preposterously evil than he is transcendentally evil (I'm misusing the word in honor of John McCain, who, when speaking of Islamic jihadism as a "transcendent challenge," surely doesn't mean a challenge that, "In Kant's philosophical system {exceeds} the limits of experience and is therefore unknowable except hypothetically.)

Indeed, North Korea is a closet capitalist nation. As I have previously written in these pixels: "In 2002, Kim Jong-il declared that 'money should be capable of measuring the worth of all commodities.' By that calculus, the ability to make nuclear weapons is a commodity that can (and probably should) be monetized."

Barack Obama's debate response to what Wolf Blitzer smugly thought was one of his best gotchas, was the correct one, and Senator Clinton's was wrong. And their disagreement wasn't just about foreign policy strategy. It's a microcosm for why his campaign is succeeding so brilliantly and she's struggling, and for why he would be by far the better president. Her caution, her wonkish calibration of the geopolitical fine points, her miscalculation of who would benefit from the "propaganda" calculus, reflect her approach to her campaign and to governing.

Experience, through her prism, is an imprisoning force. It's the enemy of the bold, the direct, the appetite for "bold experimentation" in the words of FDR. When Hillary Clinton talks about what she's learned from her experience with her disastrous health care program, one wonders how she can take such massive pride in her massively bad judgment? She spins her defeat as an example of how tough the health care industry is, but the truth is that her approach, her solution, and her inability to sell them to the American people made life very, very easy for the lobbyists.

Senator Obama's willingness -- even anxiousness -- to engage our enemies isn't because he is silly enough to think he can win them over. He knows that if he meets with Kim Jong-il at some neutral spot -- or heaven forfend, went to North Korea itself -- it would be a bold step that would signal America's overwhelming self-confidence. It would be just the kind of propaganda victory we need.

And there is some fascinating historical precedent for this, the famous Nixon/Khrushchev "Kitchen Debate" back in 1959. Yes, Nixon went to Russia before he went to China, and remember back then they had hundreds of missiles pointed at us, vs. Kim's and Ahmadinejad's arsenal of nouns and verbs and adjectives. And if you read their exchange at the link I've graciously provided, you'll see that by no means was Nixon co-opted by the Nikita into an unwitting tool. Given how much trouble Senator Obama got into for referencing Reagan, I'm reluctant to drag Dick into this, but the example is instructive.

One last thing. I can't resist quoting President Bush's press secretary, who was unable to find anything remotely positive to say about event.

"I think at the end of the day we consider this concert to be a concert, and it's not a diplomatic coup," White House spokeswoman Dana Perino said.

Let me remind you that not long ago, Ms. Perino confused the Bay of Pigs invasion with the Cuban Missile Crisis. I guess she is one child who was left behind.

Comments

[S1m0n]

'Strained rhetorical comparisons -- "Would he have sat down with Hitler?" are just silly.'

They're as historically ignorant as they are silly: history records that the leaders of the day 'sat down with Hitler' any number of times.

[mark77]

Bush's preconditions argument is wrong. We've seen that his preconditions approach has not worked in getting progress from Cuba and Iran.

What Bush fails to remember was that two of our greatest foreign policy achievements occurred with Republican presidents engaging in diplomatic talks without preconditions.

Reagan met with Gorbachev without precondition. Reagan didn't say, "I won't meet with you unless you do this."

Nixon met with Mao without precondition. Nixon didn't say, "I won't meet with you unless you do this."

There's no point to diplomatic engagement if there are preconditions that "I won't meet with you unless you do _____". The whole point of diplomacy is to communicate and persuade. So Bush is wrong.

[JasonEverettMiller]

As is Hillary.

[MajorKong]

Most people don't remember Newt Gingrich and the other neoconservatives calling Ronald Reagan an "appeaser" back in the 1980s because he met with Gorbachev. They even rolled out the old Neville Chamberlain comparison (they never get tired of that one).

[SEQUOIABISON]

Brilliant article, my sentiments exactly.

Hillary tried to play the macho tough lady, when in essence she was only repeating the Bush-Cheney republican talking points of Bully Diplomacy, where countries do precisely what we demand or face the consequences of our Shock and Awe.

This is neither diplomacy nor rationale politics, it is the insane failed policies of the last 7 years.

I am so happy to see Republican Lite Hillary failing; she would only bring the country more hardship because she still does not realize that her support for war has contributed to the collapse of our economy.

How in the world can she expect to institute all the domestic programs she is touting when the country is broke because of her poor judgment in foreign affairs?

How can she hope to run this country when she cannot successfully run her own campaign?

[pfc1369]

How well I recall Regan explaining to the American people that Nicuragua was only a five hour drive from the Texas border, raising the specter of an invasion, unless we killed as many of them as possible in Nicuragua.

The late, great Molly Ivins observed, on that occasion, that if indeed Ortega and his Nicuraguan hordes invaded Texas, "They would have us pinned down between the Rio Grande and the North Pole."

[joanndarc]

All those "tough" talking head have never themselves gone to war. A real war has nothing to do with the Hollywood version of it.
Civil War was the last war this counry had seen. And the later military involvments were "pussy feathers" (Lewis Black) since nobody was bombing and starving the homeland.

[ntmessage]

It is commendable that you wish to return to serious issues, even though much of your characterizations of the Clinton statements and positions are outright incorrect (I never heard those words from her) and intellectually disingenuous inferring what she might have meant by calling out the naivety shown by Obama on foreign relations recently. Obama supporters do enjoy an amazing editorial license vacant from media scrutiny.

Politics aside for a moment, I too flipped between PBS and the media bias to enjoy much of the concert. It is a shame that our citizens where only allowed to stay for 48 hours.

Obama"s cavalier statement was to meet without precondition, plans, advance diplomacy or goals. Rightfully Hillary called him out. The stretch to defend Obama is a losing argument and will be an issue with his electability against McCain. Barack has rightfully tried to move his position much closer to Hillary"s original position, about a month later.

It is obvious that Hillary possesses magnitudes more knowledge of the world than Barack, besides pure national and global experience. The Obama campaign and supporters attempt to spin Barack as just as good is not working. The negative approach by the Obama campaign only brings Hillary and the party down as they attack. Especially since her current, her view is much closer to Obama"s on Iraq while she has a better plan. His attempt to demonstrate how high the stakes were regarding his speech during the campaign against Alan Keyes is an amazing statement. What a bald face mischaracterization during the debate! For anyone paying attention Alan Keyes moved from Washington at the last minute in order to contest an uncontested seat.

Hillary has spoken out for woman"s rights in China a key ally of North Korea, and already knows many leaders all over the world. The Clintons were respected globally and all looked up to the USA. The world that Hillary was part of building, Obama claims he would create.

In some of her recent oversight activities, navy commanders were impressed with her recall of a major skirmish in that area during the Clinton presidency. Her knowledge put everyone both at ease that she could be trusted and on their toes given her command of the issues. Obama has not held oversight in Afghanistan despite his role on the committee. OK so he admits he will not be ready on day one, but 2007 has already passed and it is now almost March and no oversight yet. To enact change you must know at least a little first hand content and knowledge, especially since he readily admits that he does not have the experience.

Certain fundamentals and processes that are in place for a reason and in fact accelerate change to happen if well understood. An example of what I mean, fundamentals, like you need gas in your car to drive it. All energy for change around a known fundamentally solid activity, and there are many to be learned, will only slow down progress and create an amateurish image of the US to the rest of the world.

Many Obama supporters project the methods of the Bush administration onto Clinton for many reasons mostly political. We need to get a bit serious for a second. Obama made a blunder, a rookie mistake. A month later he has changed now said there will be diplomacy and preparations in advance, closer Hillary already knows. Whatever you think about this, it was definitely not Presidential.

Nixon"s visits to Russia and China were preceded with a significant mount of pre-work to ensure success. The comparison is invalid. One of Reagan"s early meetings with Russia was a PR disaster because the meeting was premature

If one plus one equals two, then no matter how inspiration you are you cannot make one plus one equal three. Certain things are known and fundamental. Some attempt to link Jack Kennedy"s youth to Obama, although he posses significantly more national experience than Obama. He was immediately tested, as should be expected and known, and almost started WWIII.

[kirksong]

I think you mis-characterized Senator Obama's position: "Obama"s cavalier statement was to meet without precondition, plans, advance diplomacy or goals." He actually intends to open a dialogue with world leaders who may even be our enemies. Of course he will be prepared to advance the goals, security, and welfare of the U.S.A. during any meeting. He will drop the 'pre-conditions' aspect that Hillary and G.W. Bush both agree on. No one will agree to a dialogue and negotiations if the outcome has to be pre-set and conditioned prior to the meeting. This approach doesn't work, G.W. Bush has proved it over and over again. Even Colin Powell, with incredible military and foreign policy experience, fully agrees with Senator Obama!!!

[ntmessage]

Much of these comments do not counter Obamas limited national and almost non-existent global knowledge, because there is no object argument in favor. It is a losing battle. Any argument that she does not have magnitudes more knowledge is silly.

I gave Obama credit when he moved closer to Hillary"s original position on meeting with leaders. He was correct to change his mind, as was Hillary correct to change her mind on the war. Her position is much closer to Obamas and she has a better plan to get out. Things change over the years. Heck things change every day. To continually nail Hillary for the vote against a speech years ago is to say she needs to act like Bush. This is simply gothca politics at its worse. Its easy pickins to cherry pick attacks on her record, yet are vacant of any detailed knowledge of why the Clintons had some of the best approval ratings. Bush has some of the worse.

This leads me to the point your posts prove. Many Obama supporters are simply projecting their view of Bush onto Hillary. If political, it is both clever yet disingenuous, if you really believe it then it boarders on a clinical psychosis.

[TimSearl]

"Hillary possesses magnitudes more knowledge of the world" which is why she supported the Iraq war. I assume you also thought that that was good, before you thought it was bad. We have had enough irrational fear mongering from republicans, and Hillary has hardly stood up against that. Hillary has fought for next to nothing and won even less. And if her only noteworthy achievment in foreign diplomacy is that she "has spoken out for woman"s rights in China" that is setting the bar as low as it can go. Pathetic.

[kirksong]

p.s. It was the Clinton era that ushered in Republican domination of congress. Yes, the Clinton's are divisive and have much less potential to bring this country forward in a meaningful way. The unintended consequences of President Clinton's infidelity, deceit, attempted cover up were primary motives for the religious right to bring forth G.W.Bush for two terms. This is clearly why Senator Obama has handily won the last 11 State primaries. The American people haven't forgotten the direction of the country post Clinton. Time for a real change, and the time is now... Hillary has done a great job campaigning and is a gifted senator, no doubt. I had to take time and really study both candidates closely before choosing Senator Obama. As time passes, I am even more certain that Obama has the best chances of defeating McCain plus bringing this country forward into a more enlightened state of being.

[Countess]

Clinton is a reactionary with no vision and her campaign has gotten even more depressing lately. She and her followers offer nothing positive for America but bureaucratic program details that they have memorized like school children in the hopes of winning a medal. They completely fail to understand what real leadership is.

[DennyCrane]

The problem is we have this tough guy mentality that says if you meet with foreign leaders, you're weak. Somehow it's become a sign of strength to sit back and bomb your enemies first, then talk to them once they have to yield to your wishes. And Hillary Clinton is stuck in this mindset. Being a woman means she's being held to a double standard. But instead of rising above it, she caves. Her vote for the Iraq war, her tough talk about Iran, and her attacks on Obama for being willing to talk to foreign leaders without condition is all to show that she's man enough to be President and that Obama is weak. We've had enough of leaders acting macho. George Bush can put on a flight suit and talk tough, but deep down, we know he's a coward who ditched the National Guard. Obama shows more courage by not worrying about appearing weak.

[JohnFromCensornati]

I just don't see how this concert can be viewed in a positive light.
They played for the government!
Send diplomats to talk to them, not musicians to entertain them!

[StephenSmoliar]

As I wrote in my own blog, I see the Philharmonic visit in a somewhat different light:

http://therehearsalstudio.blogspot.com/2008/02/symphonic-propaganda.html

As I put it, "The visit of the New York Philharmonic involved a propagation of faith that takes place whenever musicians perform before an audience, the faith that music can achieve bonds of understanding that are beyond the reach of words." (For those who have not researched it, the word "propaganda" has its origin in CONGREGATIO DE PROPAGANDA FIDE, a congregation of cardinals created by Pope Gregory XV "for propagating the faith.") The irony is that our faith-based President had so contaminated his words ("axis of Evil") to virtually destroy all possibility of mutual understanding with North Korea. The Philharmonic, particularly with the connotations of their performance of "Arirang," brought us closer to understanding and established "a platform upon which further conversation [in words] may take place." This was Clemenceau REDUX in slightly different terms: "mutual understanding between radically different cultures is far too serious to be entrusted to political leaders."

Hillary's weakness is that she not only does not understand the semantic intricacies of "propaganda" (hey, her husband is still hung up on the semantics of "is") but also apparently fails to see mutual understanding as a two-way street.

By the way, back in my New York days, I, too, used to eat at Arirang House!

[Henry]

I was in Wash D.C. circa 1987 when one Nicaraguan by the name of Daniel Ortega was in town. He wanted to meet with our leader Reagan about the state of Nicaragua. Reagan of course refused. It was never as though the great Red threat from the south was a reality and it seems to me that the right wing fear of meeting with adversaries would blow their corporate agenda, the fear factor would lessen.
I am a person happy to say that Ronald Reagan's legacy of "winning" the frosty conflict against some abstract philosophy (communism) had its yellow brick road laid by Nixon and Carter in Salt I and Salt II.
I believe it's cowardly not to speak to Iran. After all, it can be argued that we owe them an apology that dates back to the 50s. (How christian a place to embark on some peace reconciliation)

[TimSearl]

Yep, Iran is a third world economy without nuclear weapons, without a missile delivery sytem, with Pakistan, Israel, and the US (in Iraq and in the Gulf) all with nuclear arsenals and we are supposed to believe that Iran is a threat to us? That is what Bush and Clinton and FoxNews believes. Either they are liars or they are stupid.