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.
Loading comments…
Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to
What a turn of events in American life. Are we so desparate for others to see us so liberally, we are willing to sacrifice experience FOR skin color now? Is Obama the choice for the "New American President" so unlike Bush, so the epitome of change that the world will just have to embrace us? Now it's not enough to just be black; our pick needs to be multicultural as well. Obama would have to spend his first years in the White House just proving he's not just our "token" president.
It is refreshing to see a person's gender not be an issue, though I believe Senator Clinton's gender would be our nation's greatest asset. Black men got the right to vote before women, though I will concede the struggle to actually cast one hasn't gotten much easier. Still, women around the world are still abused as no man is.
Perhaps a greater investment for the U.S. would be to elect a woman as president. We are behind the times, since many world leaders are women, and frankly, it's time nations like Saudi Arabia, who continue to degrade and punish women for no other reason than having a vagina, would have to sit at the table with one who already knows she is their equal, and won't take any crap.
Our problems are much deeper than how the world sees us; we are a country in desperate need of leadership, are are in shit too deep to cast aside experience, maturity, and a lifetime of working for others for another figure-head. Obama's time will come, and maybe he'd make a great V.P., but we need someone who can hit the ground running.
Instead of looking at world policy, how about a candidate that will stop illegal immigration?
I love America and would like to see our country enforce the existing immigration laws before we lose the country. For all of you legal citizens, take a trip to Southern California and see what the invasion has done. Lets control "OUR" country and elect a president that puts America 1st, NOT Mexico. If you don't get it right now, you give up America. Look at ImmigrationGumball on youtube and you will see the results of "Amnesty".
Bush ran in 2000 as a "uniter" remember? He worked across the isle in Texas. How'd that turn out? He was also Mr. Laidback on the press bus. Everybody's buddy....g
The Obama of now will not resemble the Obama of next fall or the Obama in the White House if he gets elected. You can bet on it.
Americas image, Yup, as an X pat I couldn't agree more. Become A laughing stock in my part of the world.
"the world" LOVES the Clintons. They are already known and very popular around the world. Although I agree that Obamas black face and multi-cultural background is a great asset I don't think we should over look what we have ready on day one with the Clintons. And let's face it IF the US would elect it's first female President than it's clear we are ready for change.
Great Post,
I feel if Hillary would get the nomination who would have a better spouse than Wild Bill to help her change things out in the world. I don't really care what poeple think but Hillary and Wild Bill could change the world. What ever happens we have to increase the Democrats in the house and senate and totally support the Democratic nominee
The biggest obstacle to American foreign policy going forward is the outrageous fear that we have bought into since 9/11. Just listen to Rudy Guiliani tout his tough-guy record or Mike "I slept in a Holiday In Express" Huckabee if you need to imagine the worst trajectory we could be on. They and the Bush Administration seem out to alienate the whole world in their misguided efforts to make the US and Israel more secure.
I think Obama could make good foreign policy because he understands the other, seeing Muslims as individuals and not a millions-deep army of jihadists like the Republicans. And he's smart enough to pick the right advisors (Bill Clinton's smartest). Meanwhile, Hillary is tied to AIPAC and Madeleine Albright, which narrow her scopes quite a bit. And it's too soon to discount Edwards, although I don't know what kind of foreign policy he has in mind beyond fewer trade agreements.
One thing for sure, any Democrat running would make better foreign policy than we have now. This administration has managed to take whatever power it wants from the State Department and the Pentagon and the CIA to serve it's own misguided whims, and just setting those institutions in order is a huge task. Republicans would outsource our foreign policy to a bunch of corporations and private firms if they could, and who knows, maybe they have.
The best and single most action we could take in improving our image abroad, is to impeach cheney and bush.
I realize this is not going to happen, but it would be a great way to prove to the rest of the world, that democracy does work, when it is used properly.
What fascinates me is all the talk about which Democratic leader/Senator has the most experience
AND, no one has mentioned Chris Dodd who has 'stood in the breech' by filibustering most recently to insure that the 'fascist' corporate agenda of mass media monopolies does not continue to again sweep their CONTROL upon our future anymore!
If you liked FAUX NEWS EMPEROR buying up Wall Street
you'll love Giuliani bombing Pakistan one day!
It's leaders like Chris Dodd who do what is best for America rather than just say what is best for America!
One would never guess from the virulent tone and ad hominem quality of many of the comments on this blog that the problem for Democrats in arriving at a nominee for the next election is that it has an embarrassment of riches from which to choose. This blogger's primary point is self-evident -- that the first (and most difficult) task for the next president is to quickly and radically alter the view the rest of the world has of America, which has resulted from the arrogance and ignorance (or stupidity) of the present administration. That the election of Obama would instantaneously have that effect to a degree the other candidates cannot match is also self-evident.
To ask how things would proceed from that starting point is a fair question. For me, Obama's very public stand against the invasion of Iraq (BEFORE it happened) is an important fact. So is his penchant for seeking widely diverse views and debate and making decisions on crucial issues only after all views have had a fair hearing. Consider how the Cuban missle crisis might have turned out without a similar process put in motion by another president who was said during the campaign to be too young and inexperienced to be the leader of what was then referred to as "the free world." Intelligence, judgment, and an instinct for acquiring as much information and widely divergent opinions as possible before taking consequential decisions are important qualities in one who would be President.
What some consider positive qualities, others may consider negative. It would be a big step in the right direction, however, if we could at least accurately identify what qualities each of the candidates has and not sink to virulent rants about irrelevancies or positions based on bias, or worse, misinformation. Let's at least give each candidate credit for the positive qualities each demonstrably has and leave irrational rants and character assassination to the opposition.
I agree that either would take country in better direction, but the debate they've engaged in regarding foreign policy experience denogrates both. Obama's lack of experience may be a no-brainer, but his attacking Hillary by comparing her to Madeleine Albright is one of those political ruses that the pundits carry too far. Yes, it's true, Hillary was first lady and not elected to that position; does it really matter how she got there when it's quite apparent that she was a different kind of first lady who was involved in substantive assignments? On the other hand, Hillary's attack on Obama with respect to his living abroad as a child not equating with foreign policy experience also lacks serious punch. Both are much more intelligent than to sink to such transparent jabs - not quite sure why this isn't as obvious to the "higher intelligence" of the electorate unless they're caught up following certain pundits inventing yet more empty debates out of thin air.
Based on this, I think I'd be a great candidate for fed chairman. I don't have a business background per se, it's more like science, but they're all numbers. But I was right about the housing market and mortgage mess over two years ago. I also ran a lemonade stand - sort off - when I was younger and if I don't look multicultural, therefore able to identify with the masses, I don't know who does. Did I mention that I even sound foreign (might be because I was born foreign), just get me angry enough and the thickest accent will come out. This would send a message to the world that the US is serious about fixing it's economy and that should stabilize the market.
So much political minipulation has been done in this present administration = and = so much dishonesty it has become, for me, almost impossible to trust any politician! I have lived a long long time and never felt this way before. Obama is too much of an unknown. At least with Hillary Clinton we have a picture of past happenings and experience. She, also, can select the best advisers possible and "Bill" comes with the package. He will make a great diplomat for our country with his brains and experience. I don't know about the rest of you, but I remember the Clinton Years with having made investments that are certainly allowing us to live, retired, quite well...not
If you’re looking for a new experience, don’t hire someone with a lot of it. (just look at where we’re at now) That’s the main reason I favor Obama over Clinton, although I would vote for Kucinich over both of them. (given the chance)
"Also, the fact he grew up in Hawaii means he is steeped in a conceptual understanding of multiculturalism that is hard to acquire anywhere else in America. That should not be underestim
Try Queens.
You must be logged in to comment. Log in or connect with
