Three Stumbles and (Maybe) He's Out

By Patricia L. Sharpe

For about 48 hours I tried to feel good about the presumptive Democratic nominee for president, but I wonder now.

Support Barak!

Not that I won’t vote for Obama in November. No matter what. Here’s one very strong reason why. The most recent Supreme Court rulings extend habeas corpus rights to Guantanamo detainees, but the vote was five to four, a close call, and Bush-appointees Chief Justice Roberts and Associate Justice Alioto dissented. Should a Bush clone be in a position to fill the next vacancy on the Supreme Court, these welcome decisions could be reversed. In fact, the differences between Republicans and Democrats are clearly drawn on a whole host of important issues. So there is no way I could back John McCain, and I was going to argue that strongly with other high-and-dry Hillary supporters.

A Wobbly Supporter

Then, last weekend, I had an interesting conversation with a friend. An early and staunch Obama supporter, she astonished me by expressing the fear that Obama himself might be a little wobbly on foreign affairs.

“But,” she said, quickly, “that doesn’t matter. He has good advisers.”

Not Just a Pretty Face

My reply had several parts. First of all, I don’t want a president elect who comes to the Oval Office as a naif when it comes to foreign affairs. We've seen where that leads. I want a president who already knows a lot about the world, its current state and how it got here. I want a president who already knows plenty about the ways in which the U.S. has acted in the world—and why. I want him to have some vision of where he’d like to take us, a vision he can articulate in reasonable detail. In short, I don’t want a president who’s dependent on advisers for the whole shebang. Why elect an empty suit? Furthermore, in order to evaluate advisers, you have to know something. In order to choose between good and bad advice, you have to know a good deal. Too bad Joe Biden wasn’t able to mount a stronger campaign.

However, if the president of the U.S. is going to be a pretty face, a cheerleader, a figurehead, then he or she better have very good advisers indeed. And so I come to my second concern. Two big stumbles have already given the McCain forces dangerous ammunition.

The initial blooper had to do with Obama’s remark that he’d speak to anyone, even the leaders of Iran. This willingness to prioritize diplomacy pleased many of his supporters. It pleased me, too, even before the primary phase was over. But McCain and company jumped on it. Naturally. The failure came when Obama was unable to explain, clearly, why he could and would stand on that simple principle. Talking to tough cookies really is defensible.

The Talking Cure

There’s no reason why a thoroughly well prepared president can’t meet with an Assad or an Ahmedinejad and come away unscathed, even if no “progress” is made toward solving, once and for all, the big questions, especially if expectations aren't unreasonably inflated before the encounter. (Bombastic, unreasonable expectations can lead to “failure.” So can emphases on "soul" rather than interests, which may be why conservatives are so down on presidential tête-à-têtes nowadays.) During a carefully regulated summit the U.S. position will have been put forth, forcefully, appropriately. The world will have had a chance to hear and (one hopes) understand it. In the process the U.S. will also have deepened its understanding of the other country’s minimum needs and maximum demands, since subordinate officials are typically talking with their counterparts even as the principals are chatting. In short, we may not get all we want out of a given encounter, but if the team is savvy and observant and quick-footed, gains are possible. And breakthroughs do happen. As for the hazard of dignifying some boorish leader, a great Republicans dread, that concern is a non-starter. Whenever Ahmadinejad, for example, gets center stage, he makes a fool of himself. He emerges with less dignity than before. So let him rant.

If I were inclined to spend a half hour rewriting that paragraph, I could put it much more succinctly, much more catchily. Surely the Obama team could have done no less. Instead, Barak was left to waffle, which made him look foolish and indecisive. What’s more, he lost a chance to score a few points in favor of the talking cure, not the bombing cure.

Yoo Hoo, Advisers!

The second blooper was even less understandable. Surely, anyone smart enough to win the Democratic primary process would have known that Jerusalem is a hot issue for anyone speaking before Zionists. He would have imagined potential questions relating to Jerusalem and he would have prepared himself with good answers. Surely his advisers would also have peppered him with a whole barrage of questions and prepped him not to blurt out something to the effect that Jerusalem’s only conceivable future is as a wholly Israeli city. But that’s what he said, and the global village had a ball. I fail to see how anyone who has been alive for the past forty plus years could have flubbed an issue as hot and obvious as this one. Naturally the glib, crowd-pleasing assertion had to be modified, repudiated, wiggled out of. Flipflop comes to mind. Disaster!

So the Republicans have been presented with two utterly unnecessary gaffs by the Obama people. A third stumble could be fatal. It must not happen.

An Opening

It would, of course, be hubristic and foolish for yet another American president to imagine he can reshape every country in America’s image. But it would be quite acceptable for an American president to put forth a vision of a multifaceted just and humane world in a way that would not be off-putting. "This is where we want to go," he would say. "There’s room for you, too, and for much that you cherish. Bring it along." Such a vision might even be credible, given the Supreme Court’s willingness to roll back the misjudgements that led to Guantanamo and Abu Graib. Some legalists are evidently afraid that these latest rulings are too far reaching. The decisions suggest, they worry, that American representatives must always and ever respect the U.S. Constitution’s tenets, even when they are acting on foreign soil. Somehow I am not appalled. How wonderful that a majority of justices hold that we should behave abroad as circumspectly as our Constitution tells us we should behave at home. Perhaps it is no longer “quaint” to think that Americans might lead the way by binding ourselves to the rule of law first. A president who could articulate and act according to such a vision could restore respect for America around the globe.

Time for Specifics

Actually, the articulation of such visions is what Obama’s early supporters hoped for. So, Barak, it’s time to put the dream on paper. It’s time to do the hard thinking and supply a few details. Without a good deal more clarity, more stumbles are inevitable. And we can't afford that.

Comments

[DonkeyOdie]

The time in Indonesia showed him a bit of the world that was already beginning to resent the States. A perspective like that, no matter how young he may have been, gives him an ability to see through others eyes. That's enough for me to trust that he can tell good advice from bad, etc., when it comes to dealing with the rest of the world.
His advisers and staff definitely need to be a little meaner during the preparation sessions, but, I think advice on that will be coming from the rest of the Democratic leadership.
At least I hope so.

[Courtenay Barnett]

Isn't Obama telling us a lot with his AIPAC declaration ( if I may term it that)? There is a known sticking point in the Israel/Palestinian dispute over East Jerusalem. But, given the historical context within which this issue arises, Obama then would either have to be viewed as a person totally ignorant of the region's history - or - a person willing to continue with the disasters of US Middle Eastern foreign policy ( yes - including Clinton's). I discern the latter and for the US in the Middle East it is business - sorry - disaster as usual. Next president please!

[J Morrison]

Pat - do you think you might be taken a little more seriously if you spelled the candidate's name correctly? BARACK. Or is this some weird Republican 'never say Democratic - always say Democrat' thing you have going?