This is a dangerous path for Democrats to follow:
Barack Obama has long argued that he has shown better foreign policy judgment than his remaining presidential rivals, specifically in opposing the Iraq war.
But at a fund-raiser in San Francisco over the weekend, he reportedly made the case that he has more foreign policy knowledge and understanding as well -- a claim getting a lot of blowback from presumptive Republican nominee John McCain and Democratic contender Hillary Clinton.
According to an account posted online on The Huffington Post, Obama was answering a question about what he would look for in a running mate if he wins the nomination. "I would like somebody who knows about a bunch of stuff that I'm not as expert on," he replied. "I think a lot of people assume that might be some kind of military thing to make me look more commander-in-chief-like. Ironically, this is an area -- foreign policy is the area where I am probably most confident that I know more and understand the world better than Senator Clinton or Senator McCain."
Clinton took exception when asked about the comment while making the rounds of the morning TV shows in advance of the long-awaited testimony today by General David Petraeus, the top US commander in Iraq, and Ambassador Ryan Crocker, the top US diplomat.
She laughed, actually, before responding on Fox News. "Well I'm somewhat shocked by that since I don't see any evidence of it," she said. "This is kind of hard to square with his failure to ever have a single policy hearing on the only responsibility he was given, chairing the European and NATO subcommittee the foreign relations committee.
"I don't know," she continued. "I'm speechless. Making an assertion like that belies the facts and the record."
I won't engage this debate on its merits, because quite frankly I don't think it has any merits. Democrats should not engage in value-neutral and non-ideological arguments over qualifications to be President, including foreign policy experience, foreign policy knowledge, and the number of times someone has held a committee hearing. Obama in particular needs to avoid this line of argumentation, because for a long time he had it right when he emphasized foreign policy judgment. This is because the amount of time someone has spent dealing with or studying foreign policy does not, in and of itself, make someone better at foreign policy.
During the two Supreme Court nomination fights under Bush, Roberts and Alito, the Republican / conservative strategy was the same: emphasize how the extensive experience of Roberts and Alito made them qualified to serve on the Supreme Court, in and of itself, rather than any views they might actually hold on interpreting the Constitution. They put forth non-ideological arguments over Supreme Court qualifications, and two conservative judges breezed through the nomination process as a result.
If Democrats openly engage in the same sort of non-ideological arguments over qualifications to become President, then we could see another conservative, John McCain, breeze through an election to become President no matter what extreme foreign policy positions he may hold. The point of Presidential "qualifications" should not be how long someone has spent on a topic such as foreign policy, but rather the views that candidate holds on foreign policy. If experience was the criterion, then people like Dick Cheney should be considered eminently "qualified" to be President, no matter how bad he would continue to screw up the country.
In a political environment that strongly favors progressive and center-left viewpoints, when Democrats make arguments about who would be a better President, those arguments should be based in terms of policy and ideology, not the number of lines on a resume. Otherwise, we will fail to capitalize on the highly favorable electoral situation we face, as we fail to draw clear distinctions between ourselves and our Republican opponents.
|
STATE BLOGS
