But this made me realize where I think the biggest difference between the two candidates is: Not on day one of a presidency, but on day sixty.
If a new president were to start to push the sorts of policies that both candidates have endorsed, about health care, the economy, or Iraq, they would start to run into serious resistance. Within two months, some very powerful interests would have marshalled considerable forces to oppose those changes. And on that day, what really matters is whether the president has the ideological leadership of the country; can he or she go out in public, make the case that This Is What We Need To Do, and cause people to form up behind the idea?
Simply having a sheaf of policy proposals, no matter how well-designed, is not enough. The power of the president isn't in the passing of laws; it's in the bully pulpit, in the power to set the policy direction of the country and rally the citizenry to do what needs to be done. Bill Clinton knew how to do that. Ronald Reagan did, too. Obama has often been compared to JFK, and I think the comparison is somewhat apt; he may lack experience, but experience has been a poor predictor of presidential success. But Hillary Clinton? After half a year of campaigning, I still don't know what her grand vision is. From hearing her response and Obama's to the question of meeting with Raúl Castro, I would almost think it was "cautiousness." As she's fond of saying, she has been tested before against strong Republican opposition -- but she failed. Her health care plan went down in flames because she didn't unify anyone behind it, and I haven't seen any evidence that she's gotten better at that. Plus, of course, there is a significant field of Republicans who would consider it their first responsibility to stymie anything Hillary Clinton does as a matter of principle; AFAIK, few feel similarly strongly against Obama.
So what I would foresee from a Clinton presidency is a mess. A lot of exciting proposals coming out on the first day, lots of big, thick bills going into the legislature, lots of lobbyists showing up, lots of sneaky ads and negative campaigns running around in the media, and ultimately her being forced to back down. Followed by four years of not being very effective, because the Democrats in Congress can't get their act together enough to pass things even when they are in the majority unless they have a strong leader, and very likely a Republican president in 2012.
I don't know what would happen from an Obama presidency, but it's less likely to be that. Faced with a Day Sixty challenge, I expect that he would have been out there in front of the country for the entire time prior to that, forcefully making his case for reforms; the negative campaign is far less likely to even start, much less gain serious traction, if the people making it realize that public opinion is strongly against them to begin with. I don't know if his policies would be as good in their details, but they would have a chance to pass.
So this past primary, I voted for Obama. I support his campaign and think he would make a genuinely better leader for this country than Hillary Clinton, a better leader than John McCain.
I don't want a president with nothing more than policy papers; I want one who can help restore our vision of America as a country worthy of emulation.
And on that question of talking to Castro -- this is one of the few times that the candidates really differed. Clinton said she would require him to show evidence of good faith towards democracy before meeting with him. Obama said that he would meet with him without preconditions, but would demand that democracy and human rights be on the agenda. And on this matter of foreign policy, Obama is right. American influence in the world is in its shakiest state in a century; holing up and demanding that people meet our conditions before we deign to meet with them is exactly the sort of thing that would weaken us further. The next president has to step outside of our borders and talk with the outside world, not as their natural superior, but as first among equals by virtue of his conduct.
People often quote JFK's inaugural address: "Ask not what your country can do for you; ask what you can do for your country." But there was more to that quote:
My fellow Americans, ask not what your country can do for you; ask what you can do for your country.That's how you make the world follow you. Not by ordering them around, and not by acting like someone appointed you king.
My fellow citizens of the world, ask not what America will do for you, but what together we can do for the freedom of man.
Finally, whether you are citizens of America or citizens of the world, ask of us here the same high standards of strength and sacrifice which we ask of you. With a good conscience our only sure reward, with history the final judge of our deeds, let us go forth to lead the land we love, asking His blessing and His help, but knowing that here on earth God's work must truly be our own.
(And if you've never actually listened to a recording of that address -- go do it. Trust me, it's worth it.)
1 At least, I sincerely hope she wouldn't.
February 22 2008, 16:36:44 UTC 7 years ago
This is particularly important to be aware of today as people try to draw parallels between the post-WWII relationship between Japan and the US and the post-war relationship between the US and Iraq. Among the many, many differences, we had a very positive historical relationship with the Japanese before their imperialist proclivities went haywire--something we could use as a foundation to repair relations during the postwar reconstruction.
As to your second point, well, that's a fundamental philosophical difference between doves and hawks, with historical opportunities to defend either position. There are many tools in the toolbox available for turning rogue states to more mutually beneficial policies, though most of the time it seems none of them are particularly effective until the leadership of the rogue state itself decides the change is in its own best interest. Given the internal stresses and Western-leaning inclinations of the Iranian population, I would argue that the hawk position (and Obama's in this particular case, IIRC) of bombing Iran would be even more counter-productive than meeting with their leadership right now. I haven't researched the pros and cons of a diplomatic meeting of the heads of state, so I'm open to the possibility that either meeting with Ahmadinejad or doing nothing at all are the best options on that front. Certainly his openly jingoistic rhetoric combined with the fact the previous Iranian president's attempt at reforms were stifled by the religious leadership doesn't make me optimistic that there's much to be gained by opening diplomatic channels.
February 22 2008, 16:43:36 UTC 7 years ago
As to the second point, I disagree. It's not got much to do with doves vs. hawks - it has to do with idealism vs. statecraft, dove or hawk. When Obama said he'd meet with Ahmadinejad *without preconditions*, he was showing his naivete. It's just a point that Clinton hasn't made as much use of as I might have expected.
February 22 2008, 16:44:54 UTC 7 years ago
February 22 2008, 18:02:19 UTC 7 years ago
February 22 2008, 18:18:59 UTC 7 years ago
Yes, very strong today. Stron enough that we still intimidate everyone, and have the means to continue leading economically and militarily. I agree that there has to be some level of engagement, but I still contend that Obama's view of things has substantial room to mature.
I don't believe that Iran, if they were to meet with us, would feel at all compelled to negotiate, nor would they likely respect us any more (and I think the possibility exists that they would respect us much less.) Meeting with us and being able to spin it into a meeting where they didn't bend at all to the Great Eeebil is a huge PR victory for them, and an embarrassment to us, and that would be very, very easy for them to achieve.