Democrats' Broad View of Security Unreflected In Campaign Rhetoric

DENVER -- The foreign policy forums around the convention yesterday bore only scant resemblance to the foreign policy remarks from the podium last night.

At events sponsored by NDN, the Council on Foreign Relations, and the International Leaders forum, scholars, elected officials, and activists hit over and over the themes of "interdependence," "cooperation," and "investment." They talked about China, Africa, and the huge economic shifts that are going to take place. Currently, the U.S. has two-thirds of the world's wealth; by 2015, it will have only one-third, projected one economist.

But if one were only to listen to Biden, whose status as chair of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee lends him the international cred many are saying the Obama campaign needs, you would think the U.S. interests abroad were confined only to Iraq. Biden's biggest foreign policy issue--a theme Obama has also hammered--seems to be whether we should have troops in Iraq or Afghanistan.

This must be maddening to Representative Adam Smith of Washington, for instance, who pointed out that one of the smartest ways the U.S. could shore up its security would be to combat world poverty. "If locals are happy about what's being provided, they're less likely to join an insurgency," he said.

The theme of development as a means to security was reiterated so many times, I lost track of who said it where -- although Madeleine Albright, who tottered from event to event in an unlikely pair of black patent stiletto sling backs, was one of the champions of the idea. "The gap between rich and poor people in the world is growing," she said at the Forum on Global Poverty. "The marginalization of huge numbers of people is what creates instability."

Beyond deploying the U.S. Army, the non-prime-time-TV-speaking Democrats suggested investing in health, education, and economic opportunities (including access to our markets) in other countries, especially developing countries in Asia and Africa. (Surprisingly, I heard little about Latin America.) People in Africa are among those that still hold the U.S. in high esteem, one panelist observed, but too often we try to impose our methods. "These people know how to fish," he said. "What they need is a pond to fish in."

Be that as it may, the Democratic leadership doesn't seem to be getting the message -- or at least not spreading the message to the public. Foreign policy can be talked about in terms of diplomacy, development, and defense, one moderator observed. Most Americans would prefer to have more invested in diplomacy and development, she said.

Last night at Biden's speech, I heard almost exclusively defense.

Comments

[XME]

Democrats are more interested in diplomacy and development, however, they also have to prove more than Republicans that they aren't "soft" on defense. Sadly, with their speeches being broacast all over the country, they needed to focus on the things that reassure the masses. One big thing is defense...like it or not, it's what most Americans want to hear to fear safe.

[LizM]

With Biden on the ticket, you get the very best of both worlds...which basically amounts to a smart foreign policy, plain and simple.

[LizM]

I sure hope you're not going to judge the leader among Democrats on foreign policy and national security and try to glean the Biden philosophy of international relations based on one convention speech.

It sounds to me like someone needs to do a lot of homework! Biden has a very, very long record on this stuff so you better get started now!

[knuxoll]

Yeah, the reality is that Obama's foreign policy philosophy, at least, is much closer to those of the experts we listened to. Biden's I'm not so sure about -- but I'd love it if you wrote more about them here. Mainly what I'm responding to is the difference between these foreign policy philosophies I hear among thinkers in the Democratic party and the rhetoric I hear on the campaign trail and in the convention speeches broadcast on TV.

[LizM]

I just realized that you may have been replying to me...sorry for the delay in responding.

When it comes to foreign policy philosophy, Senator Obama has been heavily influenced by Senator Biden's thinking on the subject.

If I could sum up the Biden philosophy on foreign policy, I would make three points: first off, foreign relations are really just an extension of personal relationships and many of the same principles apply; secondly, America can more effectively carry out its global leadership role and advance its own geopolitical interests when it leads by the power of its example rather than by the example of its power; in other words, wise leadership understands the difference between soft and hard power and when and how to put them to use; finally, and to paraphrase Senator Biden, no US foreign policy - regardless of its merits or how well conceived or competently executed it may be - can be long sustained without the informed consent of the American people.

I would urge you to check out Joe Biden's senate website to learn more about the Biden philosophy on foreign policy. I don't know who the experts are that you've been listening to, but I can't think of one worth his or her salt that doesn't admire Joe Biden's approach to foreign policy and national security or his depth and breadth of knowledge of these issues or the impeccable and unimpeachable credentials that he brings to any foreign policy and national security challenge.

[Jezreel]

I listened to the same conferences on foreign relations mentioned in this article and they compare favorably with those of Senators Biden and Obama. Perhaps the author would have been more effective in her argument if she had provided examples of the differences between Senator Biden's overall foreign policy positions and those of the foreign policy experts on the various panels in Denver this week.