Obama's Edge: Identity, Not Experience, is Most Important Foreign Policy Asset

To be clear at the outset, I'm not a partisan of either Barack Obama or Hillary Clinton and think both would take the country in the right direction. But this whole debate over "foreign policy experience" seems misplaced. If we chose a president on that basis, clearly Joe Biden or Bill Richardson should be the nominee.

But policy competence is not the issue. The main issue in American foreign policy now is repairing America's image in the world. There would be no greater asset in that task than a leader like Obama, who by his very multicultural hybrid biography, renews the fundamental promise of America to the world as a society where every individual is considered worthy enough to get a chance in life. That speaks volumes, far more than a full set of Foreign Affairs magazines on his bookshelf.

In the times ahead, we don't need so much a seasoned diplomat of the already past post-Cold War moment as someone with an intuitive grasp of global politics in a world of hybrid cultures. Dashing a clash of civilizations and making globalization work are the tasks at hand, not negotiating this or that treaty in Geneva.

To "lead by example," as Obama has argued -- instead of the Bush will to power policies -- is the fundamental shift that needs to take place in our foreign policy.

There are plenty of foreign policy experts he can bring along into his team if he wins, including Joe Biden or Bill Richardson. If Hillary doesn't win I'm sure Madeleine Albright and Richard Holbrooke and, for that matter, Bill Clinton and even Joe Wilson would magnanimously lend their patriotic hands to refurbishing America's role in the world.

Finally, a small footnote about Bill Clinton's remark that choosing Obama is "a roll of the dice." That is certainly what I thought of Bill Clinton when I first met the future president, then governor of Arkansas, at a small dinner at Stanley Sheinbaum's home in Los Angeles in honor of Flora Lewis, the legendary foreign affairs columnist for the New York Times. Hillary was also there. Both of the Clinton's sparkled with intelligence and energy, and most important, a sense that the time for change was right and they were the right people to lead it.

But, seemingly intimidated by Flora's vast foreign policy experience, I recall that both Clinton's talked mostly about education, only listening intently on foreign policy subjects. In fact, Bill Clinton was so quiet that someone said afterwards, "Boy, Hillary is really smart. Was that other guy
her bodyguard?"

Could this governor from a marginal state who undoubtedly intuited what the American public wanted at that moment really competently replace George H. W. Bush, the man who was ending the Cold War with a whimper instead of a bang, who ran the CIA and was the envoy to China, not to speak of Vice-President?

Well, it turned out that Clinton's expansive, embracing American nature won the hearts and minds of much of the world as it was leaving the Cold War behind and entering the age of globalization. Once he got a handle on it, Clinton understood that American leadership was about making the world safe for interdependence. He was the right guy at the right time.

The question now about Obama is if he is the right guy at the right time now. The issue is not his diplomatic experience, but whether he is the best person to command America's global battle for hearts and minds.

Comments

[Grunty1]

[But policy competence is not the issue. The main issue in American foreign policy now is repairing America's image in the world]

Let me start with strong disagreement right off the bat. If both of these statements were true, then our image wouldn't be so tarnish right now. For a long time time, even before the world wars, the US has been placing short term benefits over lasting long term improvements, both at home and on the world stage.

[mommamia526]

Obama is not multicultural; he is bicultural at best. The fact that one has lived overseas does not make one qualified to engage in foreign affairs. I speak multiple languages, am also bicultural, and spent my life half on one continent and the other half in the U.S. The fact is that we do not know, or understand, what makes others, and other cultures tick and what is really running the show under the surface. If you keep your eyes and ears open, you may see and hear some currents, but not nearly enough. What runs the show is money, and in the ME most of that is not traceable. Obama, living for four years in Indonesia, does not necessarily know what goes on in the ME. Indonesia is the Far East. Even if he lived in Indonesia, or the ME now, he would not know what is going on there, not even right around him. We, living in the U.S., do not know what runs the show around us, or what deals are made either. I have a problem with Obama. He has slogans, such as: "our time is now" - what does he refer to?. He attacks Edwards and Clinton. He does not vote on important issues. As for the others who are running, such as Biden, they appear to be good candidates, as vice presidents. In all their years in Congress they have not helped solve major international problems, nor do they appear to have a clue. We simply have to hope for the best. First we must get our own house in order, then we can focus on other matters.

[sailez]

All this fuss about the election! I know, I know 1/20/2009 can't get here fast enough. However, does anyone really think that we have grown up enough to elect a black or a woman or an "Italian" or a Hispanic or a bold guy-Giuliani has two strikes against him- or a bald thinker- Paul, Kucinich- or a guy with a funny name ?
I don't think so. It will be a male WASP as always.
The trite arguments as to who is Christian enough and who is not, are nothing but spin. How I long for the days this country was electing Unitarians without any question! We are regressing folks into the folds of utter puritanism. Not a good sign.

[marcialosangeles]

Nathan, dear, you may say you are not partisan, either Barack or Hillary will do--but can you search your heart and soul and honestly say that if a woman had Barack's resume that she would even be on the stage at the Dem debates? Barack's lack of experience is of great concern and should he get the nomination it would not be a pretty sight to see the Repug attacks. Hillary traveled the world as First Lady and the reports are strongly positive on her impact. Reminder: 34 other nations have elected women as their leaders. It is beyond time that we do the same. And it just so happens that we have a candidate who is the BEST qualified and the MOST experienced who is ready to take on this challenge.

[headgame]

I am clear on my choice for the next President of the United States. We are in clear need of someone that can work across the party lines here and all nations. BARACK OBAMA IS THE ONLY CANDIDATE THAT CAN DO THIS FOR IS WITH A FRESH AND NEW TWIST. In fact, I expect Obama to teach a little new school to the old schoolers in washington. I believe that HE CAN teach a few old dogs a lot of NEW tricks. Hilliary, has too much baggage with her, plus she is going to have too much on her hands just keeping her husbands pants up while she attempt to run the country! How sad is that?

[homovivens]

Though I agree with Mr. Gardel that Obama is "the best person to command America's global battle for hearts and minds," what I take exception to is the ubiquitous assumption, made here again: the False Dilemma -- the Fallacy of Black and White, Either/Or Thinking.

Granted, Obama is mixed race -- Black and White -- but that's not where I'm going with this.

A vote for Obama is often framed as a choice between either "foreign policy experience" or "repairing America's image in the world." The concepts are neither mutually exclusive nor personally elusive: they easily cohere together in mind/concept and body/person.

Obama's "multicultural hybrid biography" is precisely what in him he will draw upon to continue with his, thus far, stellar foreign policy decisions, as in Iraq and Iran -- the deadly debacles gripping the world which too many, Hillary included, got deadly wrong.

A Columbia University degree in "International Relations," Harvard Law, and a University of Chicago professorship offer Obama their gifts of storied wisdom, historical judgment, and a case-studied perspective on political pragmatics -- experiences that synergize well with foreign policy.

As in Obama's biology, let's unite black and white in our thinking: the truth lies in the interplay between both and the shades of gray they beget.

Keep in mind that both "policy" and "politics" share a common root: Gk "polites"/"polis," citizen/city.

[lorelynn]

Obama's first foreign official foreign policy speech caused riots in a tinder box ally nation. Dont' tell me about his saluatory affect on the foreign policy of this nation. If he was so damn hot, he wouldn't have caused riots. I know of no other Democratic nominee for a president who has screwed up that badly.

I see no signs of a towering intellect. I see plenty of signs of a towering ego, and not much else. That he is too stupid to understand that a presidential candidate does not threaten pre-emptive action as part of his campaign (made necessary by his equally idiotic and thoughtless statement that he was willing to commit unilaterally to meet WITHOUT preconditions with the leaders of several nations who currently have uncomfortable relations with the US - does his lack of talent for foreign affairs know no boundary?) is all the evidence I need that he is nowhere near ready to present the kind of figure necessary to heal the US' image through out the world.

And for the record, since his supporters seem to be as uninformed as he is, Clinton was not running for president when she made the statement the Obama supporters love to hold up as example of her engaging in similar rhetoric. And yes, a senator, as a senator, can make such statements. None of the other candidates for president, besides Obama, have said anything similar as candidates.

Whenever you watch the debates, Obama is always the dimmest bulb on the stage. I have no idea what anyone sees in him. I see the worst Democratic candidate for president that I have ever seen.

[IkeChicago]

A man of the moment,
A man for our times,
A gentle man,
A proud man,
An inspired man,
The people have spoken,
Get in line and enjoy this video.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hoaoA5Qy8DQ

[skysage]

Sorry, Nathan. Hillary would not make a good president because she is really a dictator in disguise. Have you seen the lastest law suit Paul v. Clinton. A real eye-opener on Clinton. But maybe you should do like the wise men who studied the stars and planets for the real answers. So, now let the heavens speak: Obama will be our next president. Personally Ron Paul is the most intelligent and greatest humanitarian of them all but the heavens point to Obama. Edwards is a good choice too but he won't make it. Hillary is out --- and forget the rest of the so-called candidates of the Neo-Con-Religious right. The odor that exudes from their auras make me want to exit the world.

[Garvagh]

Obama appears to understand that the US is hated and feared by hundreds of millions of people because self-righteous politicians in this country have pandered to a false sense of nationalism. The US is weakened by being forced to bear the elective burden of maintaining a gigantic war machine in the Middle East, to "protect" Israel and to encourage Israelis to believe the repression of the Palestinians can be carried forward for another generation, and any country insisting on minimum justice for the Palestinians will be branded an enemy of democracy and America. This formulation puts the national security of the US, and Israel, at risk.

[union79]

You must have sent an advance copy to the White House. George has decided to use his last year traveling the world mending our image! He should do a dandy job since he is so tuned into the hearts, minds and motives of world citizens and leaders!

Having had this little bit of fun on Christmas eve, let me hasten to thank you for your interesting post.

This whole "experience" debate is bewildering at best since it has been the experienced who got us in this mess in the first place.... Cheney and Rumsfeld coming immediatey to mind. Not once but twice the public voted for the guy who appointed them. It seems that previous diplomatic and governmental experience is only useful if it resides in the body of a person with good judgement as well a willingness to listen and learn from all types of advisors ~ even when what they have to say is something don't particularly want to hear.

Experience can be a great teacher ~ it informs us of our weaknesses and strengths ~ what works and what doesn't. Unfortunately those who make it to the top on the experience scorecard often are often driven by the lust for power and not the desire to do what serves the common good.

You end your post with:

"The question now about Obama is if he is the right guy at the right time now. The issue is not his diplomatic experience, but whether he is the best person to command America's global battle for hearts and minds."

I would suggest the question applies as much or perhaps even more to Hillary Clinton as well.

Thanks again for a thought provoking post.

[Arleang]

"The question now about Obama is if he is the right guy at the right time now. The issue is not his diplomatic experience, but whether he is the best person to command America's global battle for hearts and minds." ANSWER: HE IS!

He is inspirational and possesses a towering intellect. He is the opposite of Bush's imitation cowboy, a serious man willing to take on serious issues, one who would command respect at home and abroad.

And by the way, these six year senatorial terms DO NOT WORK for this century. A constituional amendment I would support would grant staggered four year terms so that at every congressional election one senator from each state would be up for election.

[BoulderSue]

I remember when George Bush was first running for President, and having a dicussion somewhat similar to this with my husband. Our biggest concern re: Bush was his seeming lack of experiences or curiosiy about non-American cultures. That was well before we knew all the other crap. Lack of travel experiences and pure curiosity and desire to understand foreign cultures is a tremendous handicap to the "Leader of the Free World". The later attidunal comments about "Old Europe" by some of his administration members and an apparent total lack of knowledge of the history of the Middle East, let alone willingness to learn (except from a "higher father") were probably as much to blame for our predicament as anything. I was lucky enough to have parents who believed in travel as a necessary part of education (as well as fun). My poor mother lived with "hand-me-down" furniture for years since any extra money went to travel, and it shaped the way I think of the world in so many positive ways, I cant't begin to list them. Possibly the most important is that not all people are Americans or want to be, though they may admire certain aspects of our culture. George Bush has never understood this. Hillary, Barack, Richardson, Biden, Edwards, all know this on some level. "Experience" can come in many forms. The most important requisite is openness and desire to understand the other guy, whether enemy or friend. Bush has failed miserably on that count. Barack would be fine with me just because of his background. I think he's smart enough to gather around him advisors who can fill him in on the nuts and bolt (Biden, Richardson, et.al.).

[Skunk7]

I am really pleasantly surprised at the depth of thinking some of the responses reflect. The fact that the "wacko" responses that "knee-jerk" about race is significantly reduced from earlier discussions involving Obama is more heartening to me that I can possibly express here.

[yann123]

ONLY JOHN EDWARDS IS THE CANDIDATE OF CHANGE WHO CAN RESTORE OUR MORAL LEADERSHIP AROUND THE WORLD.

YOU WILL REGRET VOTING FOR ANYONE ELSE -THEY ARE NOT ELECTABLE.ONLY EDWARDS IS.