Balkinization: Here We Go Again

Comments:

ok, if we don't want to necessarily have our presidential candidates demonstrate some level of foreign policy experience, how about some level of foreign policy interest?

# posted by

phg : 10:27 PM

I want to endorse Mark's suggestion that presidential candidates name their foreign policy team (and, for that matter, their economic team) in advance. One of the worst things about our presidentialist system--I don't how much of it can be ascribed to the Constitution--is that the candidate runs as an individual, so that the election in effects is for an elected monarch who then, only after election, names his/her closest advisors. This has obviously occurred for a long time, but I think that the recent spate of David McCulloch-like books on the "character" of politicians, as distinguished from their actual policy views and talents, has contributed to this pernicious tendency.

I agree with much of c.j. colucci's skepticism about the meaning of "foreign policy experience." I think that a beginning, though, is genuine curiosity about the world outside the US borders, including some "non-official" travel. Nixon, incidentally, was stunningly equipped to be President by virtue of his world travels between 1962-1968. The problem is that he indeed did suffer from certain character deficits that torpedoed his presidency (so maybe McCulloch is completely wrong in saying that character counts).

# posted by

Sandy Levinson : 11:04 PM

It can be approved. I don't see any problem here.
Amin

# posted by

Anonymous : 11:55 PM

Wasn't George Bush Sr. head of the CIA? Would that count as experience with foreign countries? It would seem to as it would weigh in considerably. Not diplomatic or deep in foreign policy, but you'd think the head of the CIA would at least have insights helpful to foreign policy.

# posted by

John : 9:55 AM

If I recall, Truman's foreign policy experience was fairly limited

In a narrow sense, yes. In a "life and character" sense, Truman saw significant combat in WWI. His "foreign policy" experience might well have exceeded that of FDR, whose only relevant experience was as Assistant Secretary of the Navy in WWI.

Eisenhower (obviously), Kennedy, Nixon, and Bush 41 had experience in WWII similar to Truman in WWI. Carter served in the Navy but never saw combat AFAIK. Johnson, Reagan, Clinton, and Bush 43 had nothing similar. It's possible there's a lesson in there, but I'm not sure.

# posted by

Mark Field : 11:34 AM

LBJ flew as an observer on a bombing mission in the South Pacific. Nixon was a naval supply officer who served on beachheads that were occasionally bombed and shelled. Ford saw action on an aircraft carrier, Bush 41 was a naval pilot, and JFK commanded a PT boat. Eisenhower showed great moral courage as a commanding general, but as far as I can tell, may never have come under enemy fire in his entire military career.

Truman was a field artillery officer in WW I, and saw 20th century land warfare up close, in a way no other 20th century American president did. He knew what artillery fire could do to men trying to advance through hilly terrain, so I think the battle reports from Okinawa in 1945, and the discussions about invading Kyushu, had an immediacy for him that historians studying his decision about the atomic bomb should take into consideration.

# posted by

Anonymous : 3:30 PM

Military service is only one kind of "foreign policy experience." Working in the State Department or being a member of an appropriate foreign relations committee in Congress would provide more credible foreign policy experience on a resume, in my opinion.

As for announcing teams ahead of time, I agree that this sort of preemptive transparency would not only be admirable, but honorable. I doubt it will catch on, if only because the proposed cabinet members all become potential sources of scandal or misspeaking.

# posted by

Anonymous : 3:45 PM

It's not about experience, it's about decision making, intellectual curiosity, character, and good judgment. This holds true for domestic policy as well.

There are plenty of foreign policy "experts" throught the intelligence and defense agencies. Our president was surrounded by people with extensive foreign policy credientials from the public, private, and academic spheres.

Yet it was a ideology which lead to the exclusion of relevant facts, which lead to poor planning, which leads us to mess that is Iraq.

The President heard from people that invading Iraq was unwise and why, yet he still made the decision to invade anyway.

# posted by

Sebastian : 4:05 PM

Well, but Sebastian, the President also heard that invading Iraq was a good idea, from people who know more about Arab culture, history and language than all the bloggers on this site put together. (E.g., Fouad Ajami, Bernard Lewis.) Also from people with rather extensive experience in defense and foreign affairs. (E.g., Dick Cheney.) The whole idea that what's wrong with our foreign (or domestic) policy is that it's made by people who aren't smart or educated enough is a convenient belief for left-wing academics who think that they should be in charge, but it won't stand actual empirical examination.

# posted by

sean : 6:55 PM

Sean: ...a convenient belief for left-wing academics who think that they should be in charge, but it won't stand actual empirical examination.

Hmm. And yet look how wrong Dick and those other sources you cited turn out to have been. Couldn't have anything at all to do, could it, with the willingness of some people to put their politics before that truth stuff, eh? After all, why should the truth stop PNAC from lining the KBR coffers? They told the President a war in Iraq was a good idea...and it was, if your only view of foreign policy is to make a killing killing foreigners.

Go on, Sean, rattle all you like about left-wing academics. But remember that the people you cited were wrong, wrong, wrong. Not to mention morally despicable in their disingenuous cloaking of financial aims in the glorious tones of "spreading democracy." As has been pointed out, democracy in Iraq would be the U.S. leaving, that's what the largest part of their populace wants.

# posted by

Robert Link : 8:21 PM

Robert Link, you don't seem to be paying any attention to what I am saying. Yes, Cheney, Bernard Lewis and Fouad Ajami were "wrong, wrong, wrong," but the conceit that it's because they aren't smart or educated or experienced enough is just silly. Education and experience simply aren't reliable guides to whether a policy is well-conceived.

And it would be nice if there were an alternative decision rule available, that left-wing academics usually have the right answer, but Reagan was more correct about the future of the Soviet Union than all the massed professors of the Ivy League. So there's no salvation in finding a reliable political orientation either.

# posted by

sean : 8:31 AM

Reagan was more correct about the future of the Soviet Union than all the massed professors of the Ivy League.

I'm not sure exactly what you mean by this, but it sure looks like revisionism to me. Reagan believed, fervently, that the Soviet Union was increasing in power relative to the US. He warned of that danger repeatedly and insisted that the US increase its military force to account for the increased threat. In fact, of course, the USSR was declining in power.

# posted by

Mark Field : 11:18 AM

Mark Field: Reagan described Communism (in 1983) as a sad, bizarre chapter in human history whose last pages were being written. That isn't exactly what they were teaching in the IR or Poli Sci or Econ courses that I was taking at Yale back then. He was much more right than any of my professors. But maybe you have a counterexample of a Yale professor who was as prescient as Reagan? (I thought not.)

# posted by

sean : 9:57 PM