Previously, I argued that the differences between Obama and Clinton even on desperately important domestic issues, such as LGBTQ rights or health care, are unlikely to make a real difference in policy outcomes. This is because the differences between the candidates — both centrist Democrats — on these policies are small, and the enormous effects of political constraints and legislative give-and-take will matter so much that the small differences between Clinton’s and Obama’s policies will be a wash.
But Presidents have much more control over foreign policy, especially matters of war and peace. This is an area where even small differences can potentially matter a lot. Specifically, a President’s beliefs about the use of military power, versus diplomatic approaches, is essential. There are areas of foreign policy in which the President will be forced to compromise with Congress, for better or worse: trade policy, for example, and immigration law. But there is no area where the President has more freedom to choose than military and diplomatic policy.
Unfortunately, it can be hard to determine what the differences between Clinton and Obama on foreign policy are. Listening to what they say is of limited use, because currently they’re both primarily concerned with persuading swing voters and superdelegates to support them, and everything they say is tailored to that end.1
What matters more is who each candidate has chosen to be their foreign policy advisers. The press and public don’t pay much attention to these advisers, except when one gaffes2 ; furthermore, the candidates are probably planning to be stuck with most of these advisers for years to come. So the foreign policy teams Clinton and Obama pick probably reflect their real policy preferences — or at least, reflect their real preferences more than calculated candidate statements to the public do.
Furthermore, it’s important to realize that the advisers a president “brings with” will stick around for years. Some of them will have the President’s ear while the President is in office, which is important. Many of them will be elevated into positions of greater importance within foreign policy circles, which is an effect that can last long after the President who elevated them leaves office. (Many of President Nixon‘s foreign policy people remain important foreign policy people today.)
This is one of the most important effects a President can have. In the months before we invaded Iraq, the greatest advantage that the Bush/Cheney pro-war group had is that the bounds of “serious” foreign policy views were being set almost entirely by people who were in favor of invading Iraq; those who were not in favor of preemptive war were not considered serious, and so had a limited impact on the national debate.
The invasion of Iraq has been a disaster, and that disaster will probably continue for many years to come. Hundreds of thousands of Iraqis who would otherwise be alive are now dead, because of our invasion. Even more Iraqis have not been killed, but have been hurt in other ways; they’ve been horribly injured, their lives have been constrained, their infrastructure (even more) destroyed, their children’s and grandchildren’s prospects for the future dimmed.3 In addition, thousands of Americans have been killed and tens of thousands grievously wounded or traumatized. After that come the less important, but still substantial costs: Costs in money, costs in missed opportunities, and costs to the US’s international standing and effectiveness.
Over the next thirty years, there will be many times when the tenor of the “expert class” of foreign policy thinkers will again set the bounds of what is “serious” and what is not. As we’ve seen in Iraq, when the “serious” opinion excludes all people who oppose wars of choice, the costs to the world are hideous. The foreign policy experts riding on Clinton’s and Obama’s coattails are therefore important to consider.
And it’s here that we find a real difference between the candidates. Stephen Zunes, writing in Foreign Policy in Focus, reports:
Obama advisors like Joseph Cirincione have emphasized a policy toward Iraq based on containment and engagement and have downplayed the supposed threat from Iran. Clinton advisor Holbrooke, meanwhile, insists that “the Iranians are an enormous threat to the United States,” the country is “the most pressing problem nation,” and Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is like Hitler.
…it may be significant that Senator Clinton’s foreign policy advisors, many of whom are veterans of her husband’s administration, were virtually all strong supporters of President George W. Bush’s call for a U.S. invasion of Iraq. By contrast, almost every one of Senator Obama’s foreign policy team was opposed to a U.S. invasion. […]
Hillary Clinton has a few advisors who did oppose the war, like Wesley Clark, but taken together, the kinds of key people she’s surrounded herself with supports the likelihood that her administration, like Bush’s, would be more likely to embrace exaggerated and alarmist reports regarding potential national security threats, to ignore international law and the advice of allies, and to launch offensive wars.
By contrast, as The Nation magazine noted, a Barack Obama administration would be more likely to examine the actual evidence of potential threats before reacting, to work more closely with America’s allies to maintain peace and security, to respect the country’s international legal obligations, and to use military force only as a last resort.
In terms of Iran, for instance, [Obama advisor] Cirincione has downplayed the supposed threat, while Clinton advisor Holbrooke insists that “the Iranians are an enormous threat to the United States,” the country is “the most pressing problem nation,” and Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is like Hitler. This is consistent with Clinton’s vote for the Kyl-Lieberman amendment that opened the door to a potential Bush attack on Iran, and with Obama’s opposition to it.
Which experts do you want influencing the boundaries of acceptable foreign policy thought for the next three decades: The ones who supported invading Iraq, or the ones who opposed it?
Obama people are more likely to value international law, strategic restraint, and a narrow focus on al-Qaeda whereas Clinton people are more likely to take a pragmatic/instrumental view of international institutions, worry that nothing will happen without American leadership, and to have more sympathy for the Bushian idea that you need broad confrontation with rogue regimes.
Which expert do you want whispering in the President’s ear for the next four to eight years, when the next important foreign policy decisions come — Susan Rice, who has been arguing for the last six years that humanitarian intervention in Darfur should be among the US’s most pressing foreign policy goals, or Richard Holbrooke, who has been a cheerleader for invading Iraq from the start? (Holbrooke is a leading contender for Secretary of State if Clinton is elected.)
And at the most basic level, which President do you want: The one whose foreign policy team consists almost elusively of people who got the single most important foreign policy question of the last decade wrong, or the one who hires people who didn’t get it wrong?
* * *
Note: The original draft of this post included a section arguing that foreign policy is a feminist issue. The section got to be so long that I decided to make it a separate post, which I will post later today.
* * *
PLEASE DON’T POST COMMENTS ARGUING THAT INVADING IRAQ WAS A GOOD IDEA, or arguing that supporting hawks is a good idea. If you want to do that, use this post instead.
This thread is intended to be an argument for progressives who agree with core progressive ideas, and in particular progressive ideas about war.
* * *
- Although I hasten to add that what they say is not entirely meaningless. First of all, the political pressures limiting what Clinton and Obama say now, will still operate (although less powerfully) once either of them takes office. And secondly, on the rare occasion that Obama and Clinton’s public statements on foreign policy do diverge, that may indicate a real difference in their approaches to foreign policy. [↩]
- “Monster.” — S. Powers, 2008. [↩]
- Obligatory Saddam-Was-A-Monster statement: None of this is to say that Saddam Hussain wasn’t a monster. But our invasion has made things much worse. [↩]
PLEASE DON’T POST COMMENTS ARGUING THAT INVADING IRAQ IS A GOOD IDEA
Point of clarification – and I’ll not pursue a debate on either subject here, but since Iraq has already been invaded did you mean “… invading Iraq WAS a good idea”, or “… invading Iran IS a good idea”? Because both questions are being discussed.
I meant “was.” Correction made. :-)
Invading Iraq was a good idea.
(Ducking, grinning and running!)
One comment by Obama that gives me hope Amp is right is that he’ll talk to whomever, including governments we’ve not had contact with in years.
Actually, we have had contact with these governments. We haven’t had our head of state talk to their head of state, but generally that’s not done unless the groundwork for an agreement has been done at a lower level first. So unless you think that the POTUS (regardless of who it is) is going to have such powers of persuasion that he or she can, for example, convince the President of Iran that developing nuclear weapons, exporting terrorism and insurgency to Iraq and destroying Israel are bad ideas, I don’t see much of a point to having them meet. Besides which, the power of the President of Iran is limited; there are other people in Iran who have more real power, but they’re not meeting with anybody.
So, an overall question about the election. What would the Clinton vs. Obama delegate count look like if only the delegates for the states that went Democrat in 2004 were counted?
Ignoring superdelegates? Somehow I get a lesser lead for Obama of around 40. I may have made a mistake, though.
Yeah, I meant ignoring superdelegates. It seems to me that the overall question here for the Democratic party is “Who is the candidate that is most likely to get elected.” One way of evaluating that is to look at the states that went Democratic and see who got the most support.
Now that I think about it, a better way might be to concentrate on those states that were carried, by either candidate, by less than 5%. Figure any state that was won by more than 5% is going to go with that party in this election no matter who is nominated. So then the best candidate is one that can carry the “swing” states and has the strongest support of self-declared Democratic voters in those states.
If I was a Democratic superdelegate – O.K., you can all stop laughing now – I would ask myself, “which candidate is most likely to get elected? That’s who I should support.” It’s no big deal for either one of these candidates to carry, say, California, as California is going to go Democratic even if the Democratic party nominates a dead goat. Nor does it matter if the few Democratic voters in a 80% red state voted for Clinton or Obama; who cares? Why count them? I’d want the candidate that is most likely to carry the narrowly decided states.
If I were a superdelegate, I’d set the bar higher for Clinton than for Obama, because all else more or less being equal, I would like to respect the voters who participated. I’ve made my opinion clear that my particular bar is quite high – only in the case of a “dead girl/live boy” scenario, but then I’m unabashedly for Obama. Take of that what you will.
I will list all the states that were decided by four or fewer points in the 2004 election, plus my assessment on who has the relative strength and by what margin, based on recent polls. The standard margin of error in most polls are in the three percent region, so any leads at three points or below I’ve classified as a draw:
Oregon – solid Obama
Nevada – leans Obama
New Mexico – leans Obama
Minnesota – solid Obama
Wisconsin – solid Obama
Iowa – leans Obama
Michigan – toss up (Obama leads by two)
Ohio – toss up (Clinton leads by two)
Pennsylvania – solid Clinton
New Hampshire – toss up (Obama leads by three)
Note that these are relative strengths. For instance, both candidates are trailing in Wisconsin, but it’s close with Obama and not so close with Clinton. New Mexico leans Obama, but Obama slightly leads McCain while Clinton slightly trails, so there’s an actual switch of position. And so forth.
Also, there are states besides the ones I listed that should be of note:
Florida – went by 5 for Bush, but should it be a swing state again, demographics play in Clinton’s favour. But the latest Rasmussen poll has Obama trailing by 4 while Clinton trails by 7. I’d put this under “leans Clinton”. Washington is firmly in Obama’s favour. Clinton has a chance in Arkansas and West Virginia. Obama opens up Colorado and Virginia, and to a lesser extent, North Carolina.
Regionally, Obama does better in the upper midwest, the coastal south, and everywhere west of the Mississippi. Clinton does better in the north and the border south.
If I was a superdelegate, I would have a golden “SD” emblazoned on my chest, and would fly from city to city saving people.
The people you saved would say, “your grammar sucks. Remember the subjunctive mood”.
All that “si se puede” hair-splitting on the other thread has me on alert mode.
The people you saved would say, “your grammar sucks. Remember the subjunctive mood”.
They would say this as they hurtled towards the ground, as I dropped them to whip out my grammar textbook and exclaim “sylphhead was right!”
Opinion polls? What were the results of the actual polls – the primary votes? That’s what I propose should be the primary factor for the superdelegates.
Now, big decision here; cape, or no cape? Me, I’m a cape man. It looks so cool flapping in flight and you can do more dramatic poses with it. Red, with that gold “SD” on the back.
The disadvantage of the primary votes is that they vastly, vastly oversample partisan Democratic voters (naturally), and in the case of closed primaries, discount everyone else altogether. Registered Democrats don’t win elections for Democrats, and Registered Republicans don’t win elections for Republicans, because there simply aren’t enough of either group. The largest voting group consists of “Independents”, and so really it’s a question of who has the greater appeal to independents*. Another weakness is that some of the primaries took place nearly three months ago, and a lot has changed since then.
That being said, this changes several states. Nevada, New Mexico, and New Hampshire all went to Clinton by a nose hair, but are now polling favourably for Obama. This is consistent with the general trend of Obama gaining strength over time – he was trailing in Pennsylvania by as much as 30 points during March, for instance, and in Ohio and Texas by similar margins in February. Likely, this has to nothing to do with Obama and Clinton as people (I’d argue that Clinton’s attacks speak lowly of her as a person, but they seem to have helped her) but Clinton’s greater initial name draw.
There is one other thing I should note: the total Democratic turnout, for Obama and Clinton – and Edwards, as the case may apply – set unprecedented records this year. If the primary votes are indicative of trends for the general election, I think a very strong case can be made that Republican states that were once considered safe are actually much more in play than CW would have it. In this case, there’s the additional question of who’s better positioned to pick off these states. It all depends on how seriously you take the primaries as an indicator for the GE, which is an open question.
*This is not the same as “moving to the centre”. Independents do not equal the centre. Most are regular wingers of one sort or another who are disgusted with the two party system, and quite a few reject their given party (Dem for liberals, Repub for conservatives) because that party is too centrist.
Hillary Clinton was, and is, more than just a “name draw”. I think people are attracted to her (and Bill) because they were the crest of the wave of moderate Democrats in the early 90’s. If Bill had been of the Tip O’Neill variety of politician, I’d have had less than no interest in him when he first started popping up on my national political radar in the 1990 mid-term cycle, and Bill would never have been elected. She’s probably more of a “Republican” than Gerald Ford, which makes sense because Nixon wouldn’t stand a chance being elected as a Republican, and Ford was left of Nixon. If she weren’t blinded by ambition she’d be a great president. But being blinded by ambition, she’s too dangerous, as George W. “My Daddy lost the first time, but I won!” Bush is proving.
I never said Clinton was just a name draw. The effect of being part of a celebrity political family, however, would initially help her in preliminary polls. For Clinton supporters, this is the explanation that should be hoped for – the alternative is that Clinton slips 20 points in the course of weeks based on real, substantive differences between the candidates. I don’t think that’s what’s going on.
There’s a difference between Senator Webb moderate Democrat (conservative Democrat, in his case) and Senator Lieberman moderate Democrat. The Clintons have always struck me as more Lieberman than Webb. Dubya added “swiftboating” to our lexicon; Clinton gave us “Sista Souljah”.
I am sorry Amp, but I disagree. And I am not sure why you left out the fact that Barack Obama advocated attacking Pakistan, or his shifting of opinion regarding Israel.
If you want to discuss his foreign policy credentials here and want to state why he is better, I believe honesty requires you to address these issues.
Also, since you mention Kyl Liebermann, you fail to remember that Obama authored a similar measure earlier in 2007 which also requested that the Iranian national guard be deemed a terrorist organization.
The measure didn’t pass, but the intent is there. And it seems to disqualify your argument.
Since I do not believe that you are intellectually dishonest, please kindly address these points.
The disadvantage of the primary votes is that they vastly, vastly oversample partisan Democratic voters (naturally), and in the case of closed primaries, discount everyone else altogether. Registered Democrats don’t win elections for Democrats, and Registered Republicans don’t win elections for Republicans, because there simply aren’t enough of either group.
How many primaries are closed? They apparently are open here in Illinois – you can walk into your polling place here and ask for any ballot you want. You should have seen the look on the face of the poll worker (who knows me personally) when I asked for a Democratic ballot in the 2006 primary. No subterfuge was intended, BTW; the Democrats simply had much more interesting races than the Republicans did, and given that we generally elect Democrats around here I wanted to have a say on which ones were going to be my State and Federal representatives and senators.
Another weakness is that some of the primaries took place nearly three months ago, and a lot has changed since then.
Well, that’s true enough. But at least you can be sure that primary voters will be heard from on the general election day. You can’t be as sure of that of people you’ve randomly polled.
It all depends on how seriously you take the primaries as an indicator for the GE, which is an open question.
Yup. Consider that you’re going to get a higher turnout for a primary if there’s a real contest. If (for example) Fred Thompson had run a stronger campaign and given McCain a run for his money, you might have see a stronger turnout for the Republicans as well. Why turn out to vote for someone who’s a shoo-in? So it’s hard to make a prediction here.
Remember what I said about Clinton wanting to Lincoln-Douglas debate Obama to death?
Well, here it is —
(Source)
Oh, post #39, this thread.
I view this as a sign from G-d that I’m supposed to vote for Obama.
I personally would have issues with a guy who wants to be a president of the USA but if afraid to debate what he stands for.
In a general election, the number of registered Democrats in a state is about equal to the number of registered Republicans, with both groups being dwarfed by Independents. How many Democratic open primaries replicate these numbers? We can’t equate presidential polling with actual elections, but it can pick up things Democratic primaries can’t, such as a setup where one candidate is uniquely popular with independents and the other is uniquely unpopular.
Higher excitement and fervour among Democrats has been obvious since at least 2006. Higher rates of Democratic participation began with Iowa. Of course, how “excitement” during the primaries translate into GE results is not clear cut, just like everything else about the primaries.
I like this no moderator idea. At the very least, we won’t see a repeat of the ABC travesty. My only caveat is that if one should take place, McCain must participate too. Otherwise, no go.