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
This is the funniest thing I've read in awhile:
says, Larry Johnson who is throwing a competition to BE BARACK OBAMA'S EUROPEAN TOUR GUIDE:
Calvin Coolidge hearts Senator Obama. Why? Because if Obama is elected President he will be the first president since the reign of Calvin Coolidge who has not visited Europe. What would we say about John Edwards or Joe Biden, for example, if they had chaired the Foreign Relations subcommittee on African affairs but never visited Africa or held a single hearing? This is not simple nitpicking of Obama. It goes to the heart of the matter in judging whether he is ready for prime time. His failure to show even a shred of leadership despite chairing the Subcommittee on European Affairs for the Senate Foreign Relations committee is stunning
http://noq
Mr. Gardels - If you're insisting that Obama has the edge on foreign policy judgment, then, why don't you review what Obama's actually said over the summer - you must agree then that it is correct to unilaterally go after Al Quaida in Pakistan without the consent of Pakistan's leadership; you must believe that it is correct for President to meet without pre-condition during his/her first term with leaders of hostile countries. I recall these points clearly - why then are these points not brought up? I know you say you're not partisan toward Obama, but your memory seems to be conveniently short-erm.
Does Obama insisting that he has the best judgment indicate that he does have it? Is running for President the same as being President? I see a lot of puffing going on from this guy, but the only way to determine it is a track record - and I don't see it. The guy's chair of the Senate Subcommittee on Foreign Relations and hasn't held a hearing for a year; the Illinois chapter of the National Organization of Women won't endorse him because he voted "present" on 7 crucial bills when it came to abortion rights. He's got the second lowest attendance record for Veteran Affairs hearings in the 109th congress. He did vote present on 130 state senate votes - and who knows since he wasn't in the U.S. Senate during the 2002 vote on the Iraq Resolution, whether he really was just "present" for that vote too and simply landed on the side of political convenience when he decided to run for office.
Everyone has a right to their opinion. We accept this as a rule of our political life. But dont we have a responsibility to be PRACTICAL , achieve a positive result ? What exactly did our "revolutionaries" achieve in 2000 and 2004 by Nader's candidacy? Nader is and remains a significant voice among reform seeking people; but was his electoral challenge of any benefit to anyone? The answer is so obvious that applied to the current state in the election only Clinton can be supported . I'd list Obama's blackness as his major impediment. Anyone who thinks that Obama is electable in the USA of 2008 must be dreaming. Millions of white men will vote White in the privacy of the electoral booth because to vote for Obama would be an admission that Whites are no longer capable of producing a quality of leadership which to date he has always associated with Whites. I have no doubt that many Whites will not vote for Obama for no other reason than an unwillingness to admit that "his people" has fallen so low. In the general election this spells defeat for the Democratic Party. If that's what you are looking for , Obama is your candidate. Obama is the Republicans' Democrat ; make no mistake about it.
I would also argue that anyone seeking the highest office in the land who claims to have so many new insights and policy options would have organized and popularized his ideas and would have a small movement behind him. Except for general broad talk , I have heard nothing that strikes me as new deserving of devotion. His positions r general "do good" positions. He has the style and personality capable of delivering the promise of paradise on earth. So what? Some of his positions strike me either as naive or oral deceptions for political purposes. Has he offered any advise to Reid in the Senate how to get Bush to support the Democratic agenda? I have made up my mind: If Obama loses in 2008 , the Democrats have lost me forever!!!
Why should I vote for Obama again?
Something about "multicultural hybrid biography? If that's his key asset, doesn't Bill Richardson also have more of that than Barry?
How exactly am I, or any other voter, supposed to measure Barry's "intuitive grasp of global politics??" Do we really need 4 more years of "looking into the heart" of a world leader to tell if he is a "good guy?"
The comparison between Sen. Obama to then Gov. Bill Clinton is on one the Senator loses. 12 years as Governor of a State is more foreign affairs experience that 2 years in the Senate.
It really doesn't matter how many advisers he surrounds himself with, a President has to know enough to be able to DECIDE WHOSE ADVICE TO TAKE.
It may not be smart to downplay/dismiss the value of experience. What if Richardson and/or Biden are tired of trying to work with a boss who knows considerably less about his job essentials than they do? Dilbert's Dilemma is awesome fun in the comics, but translates to horrid nightmares in real life. Unfortunately, even with his populist chatter, Obama lacks seasoning.
he'd be better for america because, he's just swell. holy smokes.
Joe Biden already has much of the worlds hearts and minds and has earned the respect of leaders the world over.
It really is folly of the worst and most dangerous kind to be talking constantly about the featherweight frontrunner pretenders while ignoring and otherwise dismissing the most obvious and wise choice for the next POTUS.
Thank you Mr. Gardels. You make a great point that there is no definition of "experience" that would leave Hillary with the most of it. The only reason that she has really been viable so far is her last name.
What kind of multi-cultural experiences. My lover is from a Latin American country that has had its problems in the past, but never has it had the kind of slaughter that was in Jakarta when his stepdad rushed back to Jakarta to join the army. But anyway, what kind of multi-cultural do you want. Are you talking about his childhood in Jakarta. No thank you. As little political baggage from his childhood please. 500,000 people slaughtered and stepdad rushed back to Jakarta to work for the TNI military. People have a fantasy of how nice the third world is and they believe that is just as bad here. Guess again.
http://en.
what you don't include in your logic for Obama is his easy comparison to Jimmy Carter.
In 1976 we desperately wanted a new direction after the disgrace of the nixon/ford debacle.
We went with our hearts and picked a decent honrable man.
What we didn't realize was that he was naive and without political allies in the government.
He was unable to even get his own party to support him.
this is exactly what will happen to Obama. He has not been in the senate long enough to cultivate supporters and allies in congress.
His appeal is to the desperate citizens who want out of the nightmare we call the bush administration.
We would be voting with our heart, not our brainsagain by supporting him and will end up with a 4 year stagnation followed by 8 years of republican control.
If you want change, vote Biden. He has the brains, the experience and more importantly, the politiacl relationships in congress to achieve the many goals we need to reverse this awful train wreck called the bush administration.
You are correct that is it very rare for the US to elect a president with any operational experience in foreign policy Obama's lack of operational experience in foreign policy is the rule, not the exception.
Domestic policy is coming more to the forefront as the country heads towards a recession which means our next President has to be at ease both domestically and internationally. Clinton is the one that fits the bill. We can't be voting for a pretender.
Pretenders who double as nice guys gives us Presidents like W.
Intuition is predicated by experience. Gardel's perspective has already been shown to be sophomoric pretentiousness by Joe Wilson.
Obama by the type of life experience he has had; Yale Law School Student; Yale Law Review President; Illinois Senator; Community activist; candidate for the Presidency of the United States of America, is a proven and tried leader, charismatic, charming, ready to lead now.
I think he is more qualified to be President that many who have occupied that noble office. Thank you.
Enough said.
Those who keep pointing out Bush as a reason not to support Obama are being very impractical.
George Bush was a failed student and lived a life of failure. Every business he touched failed.
The man was incurious and arrogant. And a spoiled rich kid.
The presidency was bought and paid for by Poppy Bush.
Obama on the other hand was a middle class kid who excelled. President of the harvard law review, a community organizer and civil rights attorney. A constitutional law professor and a state senator. In each of these he has won praise and high marks. A intellectual mind and well read and curious of the world.
There is absolutely no comparission of the two.
You must be logged in to comment. Log in or connect with
