A Soapbox for Americans' Ideas on Day One

Over the weekend, we again saw massive voter turnout in the primaries, which continues to break records. American democracy appears strong, but as Matt Yglesias points out there are "important things we haven't talked about," which includes, in my view, a solid agenda, built for day one of the next presidency, to change America's foreign policy trajectory.

"Day one" and "change" are clearly on the minds of the electorate, as is evidenced by their reflection in the messaging of the candidates. The prevalence of "change" has been widely reported and plastered on the placards of every major candidate. "Day one" has been as central to the discourse. Bold print on Senator McCain's campaign website reads, "Ready to lead On Day One." During the last CNN debate, Hillary Clinton reiterating her campaign mantra that her experience prepares her to "tackle all problems on day one." Senator Obama, conceding Clinton's experience, retorted that "it is important to be right on day one."

The candidates have picked up on a sentiment that is widespread through the electorate. They are tired of the current leadership (particularly with regard its foreign policy) and eager for a new, bold direction beginning on day one of the next presidency. Rightly so. The world is watching with bated breath not only to see who we will choose as our next president but how that president will choose to interact with the world starting on their first day in office. Regardless of who that person is and what they represent, they will need a slate of fresh ideas and a solid plan of action. Building a successful successor regime to Kyoto, ensuring the halt of the proliferation of nuclear weapons through rogue regimes, soothing war-torn regions, and bolstering the rule of law around the world -- just to name a few of the many challenges America faces abroad -- requires bold and innovative American leadership and political persuasion to build the necessary international consensus and momentum. The electorate, and the rest of the world, knows that we are not now headed in that direction.

The fact that there has been little discussion of the American foreign affairs agenda beyond our involvement in the war in Iraq is, in a way, a failing of the American democracy. The leaps in technology, communications, and political access that we've seen over the past decade should have produced American Democracy 2.0, a more perfect republic, better able to tap into the talents and good ideas of the American people. The marketplace of ideas has been democratized. Logging in now carries as much civic virtue as voting. Unfortunately, up to this point, though Americans have continued to speak with their money and their votes, they have not yet truly spoken with their ideas. Whether that is the fault of a government that keeps its citizens at arms' length, campaign playbooks that are scrubbed clean, or a citizenry that doesn't always raise its voice, it is a problem.

To elevate the discussion and innovative ideas already percolating in the electorate, the UN Foundation has produced an online forum (OnDayOne.org), where Americans can submit their ideas about the new course America will take. By doing so, we think that we can help the electorate shape the American foreign policy decisions made in the first days of the next presidency. If America is to succeed, the best ideas, not just those of the most powerful, need a soap box and a mega phone in the Oval Office.

Comments

[satyr9us]

This is exactly what we need to be talking about. During this campaign cycle there has been so much obsessing over who has the better catch phrase, who polls positive and negative, who has superdelegates locked up, &c.

The fact is that we're going to have one of these people in office, and the thoughts vocalized online by the citizenry-- at On Day One and elsewhere-- are and will be present before the eyes of that President.

We need to be talking to her/him now. It's not so much about who's more or less prepared-- when we start that discussion we end up with circular semantic parsing that only leads to a headache. It's about WHAT DO WE WANT THE NEW EXECUTIVE'S AGENDA TO BE?

One angle to start with: how do we patch things up with the UN?
http://www.ondayone.org/blog

[desmirl]

If you want to worry about foreign policy, worry about the deteriorating relations between the United States and Russia. There was a while (During the Clinton Administration) when the missiles--and their nuclear warheads--were being looked at hungrily by the scrap dealers. Now, both countries are back to being locked and loaded. Thanks a lot, George W. Bush. Let the next president worrry about how to calm things down--unless of course it's McCain, who, with his short temper, will further inflame the problems between the US and Russia.

[Countess]

It is no accident that foreign policy is not being talked about in the democratic primary. Hillary Clinton is a hawk who does not want people to remember her votes supporting Bush on Iraq and promoting war with Iran. Obama should really go on the offensive against her.

[alkamm]

Obama is on the offensive against McCain, whose position as an exponent of the war (I think he's promised to at least cube it) is proud and full of false patriotism.

Why beat a dead horse?

[DasBoot]

I completely agree. Foreign policy has all but disappeared from the agenda, even though Obama took the initiative on a few occasions, for example stating that he would end the boycott of Cuba, which is something I support.

-Would the candidates leave permanent bases in Iraq?
-Would they sign on to international treaties the ban on cluster bombs, land mines, or the international human rights court?
-Would they reject the doctrine of preemptive war?
-Would they reserve the right to use nuclear weapons first?
-Would they release third world nations from their debt?

[mamacat]

"...ensuring the halt of the proliferation of nuclear weapons through rogue regimes..."
Are we going to embrace the Bush doctrine, namely, that the U.S. has the right to do whatever it wants, wherever it wants, whenever it wants, regardless of truth and facts, or are we going to go back to at least a pretense of following international law?

The author is completely correct in stating that we need a discussion, but do we really need innovative ideas? Is it not enough to reject the flawed ideas of a failed presidency, and go back to the idea of constitutional democracy?
What right does the United States have to try to dictate to the rest of the world how they should run their lives, what religion they should cherish, or what form of government they should choose?
"Forcing" democracy on another people is a ridiculous premise. Anything that is forced on another country cannot by definition be democracy. Democracy can only rise up from the people. As long as American soldiers can aim their guns at the citizens of another country, inside that country, then that country is not free and does not have democracy.
So far, neither Democrats nor Republicans have rejected the idea that we should enforce our national will both unilaterally and militarily.

[NoFactsJustTruth]

The 'Day One' rhetoric is just another red herring though, Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton BOTH have more Washington D.C. experience than did Bill Clinton on 'day one' of his Presidency, so it really means NOTHING.

The TRUTH is that the MOST ready to be President on 'day one', is ALSO likely to be the MOST plugged in to the 'status quo' Washington networks and the 'business-as-usual' beltway agendas.
The 'day-one' argument seems to be trying to say, unless a newly elected President arrives in office on their first day with the knowledge for making closed-door, back-room, under-the-table deals that are probably illegal and definitely against the will of the people, then they're just NOT ready.


Uh huh...

[realitytrumpsbull]

Soapbox? You're standing on it. Matter of fact, you've kind of always had one, just that very few people see it as a gainful use of their time, so they spend their time trying to figure out new ways of robbing their neighbor/employer/business associates etc., or avoid getting robbed by 'the government', rather than taking issue with the Big Issues, like the lack of a very detailed annual budget report to the public.

I hope that the 'soapbox' continues to be manned, at all times, in order to promote public awareness, and help prevent future larcenous policies and practices. Not to be all self-righteous and stuff, buuut...I'd feel better if they also had some kind of information related to who's got the Big Wad of T-bills, so it's a little clearer who we work for, and stuff. Who's the big G-money? If it's Prince Texaco, well, there may be a problem in that area, related to the continued maintenance of our sovereignty and independence as a country. I think they were working a little of the old trans-national fiscal 'magic' when people across the country started waking up and asking Those Questions. In a word, BUSTED!
http://www.impeachbush.org
http://www.wexlerwantshearings.com
(your impeachment-related website HERE)

[Countess]

Clinton does not want to talk about foreign policy because she thinks like Bush and knows this would lose her votes so she is hiding her true intentions as reflected in her votes supporting Bush on Iraq and promoting war with Iran. I believe many of her supporters are closet hawks like her.

[LoloZ]

We in NH were lucky to have the most time with the candidates this primary season. Barack Obama and his foreign policy advisors, including Susan Rice, Anthony Lake and Samantha Power, hosted a three hour conference on foreign policy, and the senator answered questions for an hour. He has judgement, vision and clear thought on foreign policy. Not only can he represent change for America but for the world. I urge voters to go to his website and see for themselves. Hillary Clinton is a foreign policy hawk and would not be much of a departure from McCain.

[sef2121]

Really? Last I checked HRC is for ending the war in Iraq, incorporating US policy and bases into the UN missions, helping Darfur more than we have done recently, strengthening NATO, addressing human rights, working towards a two-state solution, etc , etc.
Not much different from Obama except for 1.he wants to have tea with the prez of Iran (and talk about what? oh, mr prez, please stop stoning teenagers, killing women and denying the Holocaust and while you are at it, please stop giving money to Hamas and Hezbollah so that they can kill more Israelis) BTW, tea with Iran means no support from Israel on a peace process because this will enrage them and like it or not, we need Israel just as much as they need us 2. he wasn't present (as usual) at the Kyl-Lieberman vote so he likes to paint HRC like a warmonger when she isn't one.
Her policies couldn't be more different than Bushs' or McCain's. Please read her website and watch the debates before making such assertions. Furthermore, Obama was the most absent member on Senate Foreign Relations, never visited Europe or proposed policy as the Chairman of the Senate subcommittee on European Affairs and he has no foreign policy experience. HRC sat on Senate Armed Services and she was a NY Senator for eight year after 9/11...not an easy position to be in...
Last I checked Obama thinks that going into Pakistan without their government's approval is okay. Where is his experience in the military? Has he been to a combat zone like other Senators (HRC included)? Do you think that incessantly repeating "I am no Muslim" over and over makes us any friends in the Muslim world? The main reason I do not like him is his foreign policy goofs...the man has no idea what he is talking about...good speaker, sure (though I prefer policy speeches over fluff and corporate hope) foreign policy buff? You are delusional !

[alkamm]

Hillary's candidacy guarantees McCain would be at the very least competitive, so her foreign policy positions are likely to get McCain elected rather than rejected.

Obama is there for us as a trump card and his candidacy matches up quite well politically and morally against the McCain endless surge mentality.