[Newsbot]

Filibuster Cartoons
Title: Training wheels (click to view)
Date: January 25, 2009
So I was all set to write something about how little foreign policy experience President Obama has, and how heavily he will have to lean on Secretary of State Hillary Clinton during his first term, etc etc. But then it occured to me that of the last six presidents, only one has had anything resembling what could be called "foreign policy experience:" George H.W. Bush, who served as UN ambassador and vice president before becoming prez.

Does it matter that presidents lack foreign knowledge before assuming office? Evidently not in the minds of voters, who in fact that have a marked tendancy to reject the more foreign policy saavy candidate. Discuss!

[Shablabar]

That's the beauty of having the biggest and best professional civil service in the world under you -- you don't need to know anything.

[CanadianJeff]

Well at least she has Bill Clinton backing her up. It's almost impossible to be president and not learn some foreign diplomacy in your time.

[Voyager]

I don't know about anyone else, but I find the hillary-helmet more a little intimidating.

[hwacker]

CanadianJeff wrote:

Well at least she has Bill Clinton backing her up. It's almost impossible to be president and not learn some foreign diplomacy in your time.

Sorry Bill will be too busy backing up others.

[mogman1]

hwacker wrote:

CanadianJeff wrote:

Well at least she has Bill Clinton backing her up. It's almost impossible to be president and not learn some foreign diplomacy in your time.

Sorry Bill will be too busy backing up others.

*ba-dum kish*

As for foreign experience, I don't think it's as critical as one might think. Bill Clinton didn't have much and yet he did really well. I think personality and eloquence are more important. It's hard to take someone seriously as a leader if they if aren't good at expressing their ideas coherently or if they are perceived as being closed off. Bush's, well, Bush-isms were a severe liability to him. Even though it would be easy to say otherwise, he really wasn't an idiot, and this coupled with the general unpopularity of his positions amplified his negative image, I think.

So Obama's natural eloquence will serve him well in persuading others and winning friends, which is at the core of diplomacy. Already his perception around the world is through the roof, although admittedly part of that is just because he is not Bush. So let's hope he can capitalize on that goodwill.

Also, let's not play up Hillary's foreign experience too much. I mean, yeah she had to deal with sniper fire and all, but....

[roger-roger]

mogman1 wrote:

As for foreign experience, I don't think it's as critical as one might think. Bill Clinton didn't have much and yet he did really well.

The right wing partisans are going to burn you alive for such heresy!

mogman1 wrote:

I think personality and eloquence are more important. It's hard to take someone seriously as a leader if they if aren't good at expressing their ideas coherently or if they are perceived as being closed off. Bush's, well, Bush-isms were a severe liability to him. Even though it would be easy to say otherwise, he really wasn't an idiot, and this coupled with the general unpopularity of his positions amplified his negative image, I think.

So Obama's natural eloquence will serve him well in persuading others and winning friends, which is at the core of diplomacy. Already his perception around the world is through the roof, although admittedly part of that is just because he is not Bush. So let's hope he can capitalize on that goodwill.

Also, let's not play up Hillary's foreign experience too much. I mean, yeah she had to deal with sniper fire and all, but....

[CaliShark]

Well, Bill Clinton's big two were:
1) Start your wars in areas no one cares about (Somalia, Oman, Bosnia).
2) Do as little as possible otherwise.

Honestly, those are possibly the best pieces of advice I could give a new president.

Realistically, foreign policy is just like working a high-power cocktail party: Schmooze with the right people, belittle the wrong people, and hope to leave before someone throws a drink at you.

Bush was the frat-boy who got drunk in the first 30 minutes and then proceeded to punch anyone who didn't like him. Not very diplomatic, but refreshingly straightforward.

[mogman1]

Eisensapper wrote:

The right wing partisans are going to burn you alive for such heresy!

I was kind of expecting it, too. I don't mean to say he was the greatest president evar or anything like that. I'm not fond of some of his policies and certainly not his behaviour at the end. I'm just saying that he had a really good image abroad and was an extraordinary diplomat. He wasn't called Slick for nothing!

I would agree that foreign policy amounts to being able to work a high-powered cocktail party. For all the romantic notions of nations as entities, they are still just institutions filled with people, and thus behave in the irrational ways that people do. If you like someone, you're more likely to stick up for them, even if they are wrong, and if you don't like them, you aren't likely to come to their defense even when they are right. The ability to empathize with others, or the ability to be perceived as empathizing, is paramount in moving forward any form of political deal.

I think Bush's presidency can be summed up with the shoe incident, and not in the obvious and cheap conclusion that we all hate him. The guy who threw the shoe at Bush was extremely frustrated with the state that his county was in, and so he threw his shoe at the man he felt was responsible. After that, Bush just dismissed it saying "...so, the guy wanted to get on TV and he did. I don't know what his beef is..."

On the one hand, I understand why Bush would not want to give the incident credibility, and thus encourage more actions like it, by giving it much of a response. But on the other hand, I think that is precisely why people don't like him, at home and abroad. Things like that say to people "I don't care what you think and I refuse to acknowledge it." Or worse in this case, that Bush really did have no clue what the man could be upset about.

You have to make the other side at least feel like their concerns are listened to and acknowledged, that they are a part of the process even if you don't use their ideas. Otherwise you just come off as brusque and arrogant and, well, everyone winds up hating you. For the moment, Obama has that going for him in that he is perceived as being open and willing to listen to others, and that will take anyone far in diplomacy.

[Kjorteo]

Good post, mogman. It reminded me of why I was so mystified during the Obama/McCain debates by McCain's continuous cries of "my opponent wants to sit down with our enemies without preconditions!" like that's a bad thing. No one ever said he was going to become subservient to them; just to sit down and talk. Discuss. Negotiate. Hear what the other person has to say. Hearing what the other side's demands are isn't the same thing as agreeing to them, and if the alternative is the "I'm pretending you don't exist until you magically hate America less" strategy that has worked so well for places like North Korea....

[Taospark]

American foreign policy was fairly easy when the President didn't have to ask for stuff. In a global economy with multinationals straddling continents, all politicians wind up doing is playing the role of matchmaker or Walmart greeter while the private sector creates the real impacts and cultural exchanges.

[Psudo]

Quote:

For all the romantic notions of nations as entities, they are still just institutions filled with people

I don't understand the distinction between "entities" and "institutions" in this sentence. "Organizations" would be another term that seems synonymous to me.

Quote:

Bush really did have no clue what the man could be upset about.

I took his quote differently than you. I took it to mean "Everyone has opinions, and I don't know what his specifically were." You seem to have taken it to mean "I can't imagine why someone would question my leadership; I have no critics."

Quote:

I was so mystified during the Obama/McCain debates by McCain's continuous cries of "my opponent wants to sit down with our enemies without preconditions!" like that's a bad thing. No one ever said he was going to become subservient to them; just to sit down and talk.

Sitting down to formal negotiations, such as between heads of state, is in itself a public statement that the guy across the table has legitimacy in his views. McCain opposed making any such statement.

[commanderkai]

Kjorteo wrote:

It reminded me of why I was so mystified during the Obama/McCain debates by McCain's continuous cries of "my opponent wants to sit down with our enemies without preconditions!" like that's a bad thing. No one ever said he was going to become subservient to them; just to sit down and talk.

It's called giving them legitimacy. "Talking" to them means you're actually thinking they have some justification and legitimacy for their cause, and terrorist groups are one you do not want to give legitimacy, because if you do, they'll advertise that for more recruits. Having both Iran and the United States sitting at the same table means that Iran's has legitimacy in their claims and ideas.

[Kjorteo]

Maybe, but to be honest, I'm not sure shutting them out completely is wise. They usually don't change their minds all by themselves, and outright denying their legitimacy isn't going to make them feel any better about us. If we have grievances with someone, we shouldn't be playing the "I'm ignoring you" game like a petulant eight-year-old; we should be talking to them about our grievances.

[mogman1]

You're right, my wording wasn't great on my characterization of nations. All I was trying to get at is that the language we use concerning nations gives the connotation of an independent entity with desires and ideals, but in reality it is just a collection of people behaving in the same irrational way people behave.

For Bush's comments, I agree that there are multiple ways of interpreting them. There are the ones I describe, but you're also right about the interpretation (and probably true to a point) that Bush didn't know the man's specific opinions or purposes. Unfortunately, the way Bush said it also suggested that he wasn't interested in finding out or consider it worth further thought. That he was just another crazy abusing this great gift of freedom given him. But, as I said, even if Bush didn't know the man's specific grievances, the general position the man was expressing could not have been more clear: That being his extreme frustration at the state of his country and the feeling of anger towards what he saw as an unresponsive and uncaring government, (both the US and his own). And he is not alone in that sentiment.

I tend to fall in the same camp as Kjorteo. I understand why you should be careful about having talks with just any foreign actor. Acknowledging them does lend credibility to their cause and does give them an air of legitimacy. This can can have the unwanted effect of people flocking to the very cause we are trying to discourage. But it can also have the effect of the people seeing you as the one who wants to change things for the better and move forward, and thus bring more people to your side because you are the one holding the olive branch. It's all about posturing and it is an incredibly complex thing, I don't mean to make it out to be trivial.

The problem with not talking is that it just maintains the status quo, and I don't think that works all that well. No, you would not want to have high level negotiations with a somewhat transient organization like Hamas, but something like Iran or Cuba is more than just a passing political movement. They aren't going anywhere and they are going to play a role in their respective regions and the world, whether we like it or not. It disturbs me when we use the same tactics in foreign diplomacy that we did on the elementary school playground; the notion that not talking to someone will make them so sad and remorseful that they will repent of their evil ways and come crawling back to ask your forgiveness. It wasn't effective then and it isn't effective now.

Yes, there are risks associated with talking with rogue organizations and nations. I do concede that you can give them undeserved credibility by doing so and increase their recruitment rate. They can spin it off to serve their own needs. But you are talking to more than just the group when you engage them. You are also addressing the people they represent, you are giving those people another option. If we do not have visible negotiations with Iran, then we are not giving Iran's people any reason to disbelieve their own government when it says that the US is just out to get them.

If we are seen by its people to be negotiating with Iran and trying to work out our differences, and the Iranian government still refuses to cooperate, then the people have a reason to be angry with their government and apply pressure from the inside. But this is only effective if we can come forward with offers that would be attractive to the Iranian people at large. We have to give them a reason to want better relations with us, and threats of violence or marginalization don't have positive effects on people. Even if such actions are justified.