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
I have thought all along that Barack obama is the best person for the job at this time. Not in 2012 or 16. But, now. It is now that we need him to be president.
I don't think "intuition" should be a valid qualification for any candidate. And it de-legitimizes Obama's background to say his intuition can stand in for experience. I have excellent intuition, and maybe I would make a good president, but I hope people would judge my merits on other grounds.
The fact of the matter is, many presidents do not have extensive foreign policy experience when they assume office. But they don't necessarily need it. What they need is a combination of good advisors, sound judgment, and communications skills. I would concede that Obama could bring this combination to the office. But so could Hillary. I'm more likely to agree with Obama's judgments than hers, but given a choice, I'll go with Edwards.
Time for a reality check.
1. Bill Clinton had a degree in International Relations from Georgetown and studied under, and subsequently employed a renowned professor as his Secretary of State. He was a Rhodes Scholar at Oxford prior to becoming an attorney. His astounding success was the legacy, with the active support of and independently generated good will of the First Lady. The international standing and reputation of the US was demonstrative and resounding and empirically reflected in the international legacy he left to his successor.
2. Intuitive judgment is a metaphysical conclusion which cannot be qualitatively assessed as a practical. How on earth could you have so determined Clinton's "intuitive" abilities in 1992, other than by his experience and education?
3. Sen. Obama's intuitive resources cannot be logically assessed except in an experiencial or educational context. I suspect that foreign policy competency is there somewhere, but it certainly has not been presented very well yet, but we are presently experiencing the disaster of a president who determines foreign policy by intuition. Your blog makes reason shudder.
Yes, experience is not the be-all and end-all of foreign policy. There is one thing which is vastly more than experience. Call it "a clue".
"The issue is not his diplomatic experience, but whether he is the best person to command America's global battle for hearts and minds."
Agreed. Now how would the person who said he would "stop the import of all toys from China" win the global battle for hearts and minds in China, say? Granted, it's a great attention-grabber, especially just before Christmas. Granted, he could win the support of many isolationists who have seen too many American jobs go to China, or who are unhappy with the safety or employment record there, or who just hate Chinese, or hate communists. But 80% of the world's toys are made in China, and most of those end up in the US. Did Obama think he could just stop all that in its tracks without any blowback, without any unintended consequence? That there wouldn't be any Chinese retribution? Obama's campaign had to step in smartly and pretend that he'd only been talking about toys that contain lead paint (where the necessity of a ban should go without saying), but there's a limit to the number of times you can pretend like that and get away with it.
Barack Obama is of course better than the more war-mongering alternatives, but only marginally so. If it is politically expedient for him to monger wars, he will monger wars. Is this really the best that the Democratic party can do? What is so terribly wrong with Dennis Kucinich, that he must be maginalized at every opportunity?
Gardels wrote:
"... 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 ..."
This is the prose of varsity book reviews. I'll assume you're kidding, unless someone else can explain what it means.
We've been listening and cringing at our current president's ignorant and often offensive statements to -- and about -- other countries for so long that that we're losing our perspective. The symbolism of youth and color (as in "person of ...") won't last long if Obama pulls some beginner's move in a difficult moment.
We need a president who will speak clearly about our willingness to cooperate, and who already has "street cred" in international politics. Both Biden and Richardson are way ahead on this score, but I believe Biden has the edge for clarity and passion.
I don't expect it from the people who comment, but I really wish that the bloggers could learn some basic spelling and grammar.
The plural of Clinton is CLINTONS, not Clinton's. Clinton's is a singular possessive. "Hillary Clinton's campaign for president (as well as all the others') started way too early." Clintons' is plural possessive - "He went to dinner at the Clintons' house." What you want is, "I recall that both _Clintons_ talked mostly about education.
The ONLY policy that will reassure the World that the USA isn't a schizoid with an itchy nuke trigger finger is for the next president and congress to investigate, indict and place on trial Bush & Co. Anything less, especially from some, lets-be-fr
Obama is a single dose of lithium. We need shock treatment.
Biden to Bush: "Your instincts aren't good enough.!"
Is "personal identity" good enough? Good vibes? Gut-thinking? Multiculturalism?
I want serious background and expertise in foreign affairs for my new president. A search for identity that has roots in Kenya which displays a level of introspection, honesty, and maturity, i.e., no longer doing drugs? Where have we heard that before?
Obama purports to ride into town on a white horse. You will see that white horse only if you project your own longing for a breathlessly intuitive sense of the world.
Wanting to have a beer with a guy or a line of coke will not qualify the candidate. I prefer the reality-based view of the world, not another intuitive child of destiny.
Give me prosaic credentials, sound policy proposals, knowledge, experience, rather than hope.
Lastly, let's realize that to change foreign policy we must change the bilateral consensus that our economic problems can be overcome with an aggressive militarism based on commercial advantage of multinational corporations.
Obama doesn't excite me, Hillary isn't inevitable. Edwards is setting the tone with the populist message. With large majorities expected in 2008 in both Democrats, why should we compromise with the Republicans rather than grabbing the brass ring that will set the tone for our foreign policy, that is the begin fixing the domestic problems with the Federal Reserve Board which favors capital over labor and militarism over developing our infrastructure.
If Obama has never been to Europe he will get his foreign policy experience where Bush did - at IHOP - International House of Pancakes. That's not good enough for me. I'm not taking any chances on untested commodities sold by TV guru Oprah.
You make a very good point. What we need is a good foreign policy, not necessarily foreign policy experience. The next president will have many people to consult. Hillary's judgement tends to be hawkish. Obama had the good sense to be against a "dumb" war from the begining. I would be proud to have him represent us on the world stage, and I trust his judgement.
Obama has a Charismatic Edge: Integrity, Authenticity, Veracity and the Capacity to Lead and Inspire American's and citizens of the world to get along.
Thank you for taking a step back and giving this issue some perspective.
The bottom line is, this is a non-issue as they will all consult with experts anyway as you say. Granted Hillary has some invaluable if not infallible experience for her proximal years in the White House, while Obama has got the smarts and the confidence to choose advisors who may not always tell him what he wants to hear, the relatedness to work with them, and multi-cultural experience that would help him unite the many diverse viewpoints he would encounter. 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 underestimated.
And as you say, Biden and Richardson have their own true strengths as leaders and foreign policy expertise, as do the others. And you gotta love Dodd and Kucinich for getting out front and sounding like real Americans on constitutional issues after years of deference by both parties, and Edwards for his commitment to leveling the playing field. They are all very competent so let's get down to the honest debate and salient issues-tending your post exemplifies. We can do this without being divisive.
It was Fareed Zakaria, who also suggested in the latest Newsweek issue that "identity trumps experience and expertise.
Having said that, the two categories are not mutually exclusive. One could have all the experience and no defining identity and yet make a bad president (e.g. Nixon, whose identity got defined during his presidency). And then, one could have a defining identity and little or no experience and then struggle through a failed presidency (e.g. Bush 43, who gained the required experience during his presidency much to the country's detriment).
So to Obama fans, I'd say "caveat emptor." We cannot afford back-to-back presidents learning on the job!
Richard Nixon had a lot of experience
-A wellspring of experience and a hefty dose of pigeonholing rage against "Republicans" minus good judgment and a big picture perspective got Richard Nixon stuck in a myopic and increasingly alienated presidency
1. Media cartel sends word to their top news divisions: the script for the Dems is a horserace between the two most vulnerable nominees Obama and Hillary. There will be a news blackout on the other Dem candidates.
4. Horserace is established. Hillary pulls ahead. She is then torn apart by the media, and the weaker of the two, Obama, is given wall-to-wall positive coverage.
5. Obama wins nomination.
6. The media does an about-face and tears Obama apart. Scandals. Swift-boat attacks. Race-baiting. His numbers plummet.
7. Prop up the repug candidate.
8. Repugs win. Media ownership rules loosened. Profits soar.
The plan is crystal clear to me. I don't know what YOUR problem is.
You must be logged in to comment. Log in or connect with
