What the Candidates Mean for Europe

This article, Robin, I think precisely identifies the area of greatest vulnerability for Obama once the fall campaign begins.

But in fairness to him, with rare exceptions, few new presidents come to the White House with significant diplomatic or national security experience or with strategic visions born of such experience. George W. Bush certainly had no such vision. His father had something of a vision, inherited from every post-World War Two president, from Truman to Reagan.

The last US president to have a combination of experience and strategic vision, and both were abundantly present in him, was Dwight Eisenhower. His possession of these assets paid off hugely as, during the height of the Cold War, Eisenhower expertly extricated the US from the Korean War (within six months of his taking the oath of office) and kept the nation at peace through the balance of his term. Eisenhower did this largely without grand pronouncements. Too often his successors in the Oval Office have thought that speeches equaled policy. As an old national security pro, Ike knew better.

Before Eisenhower, whose first term began in January, 1953, the last president to have anything like a strategic vision was Theodore Roosevelt. In spite of his bombast and a militarism which resulted in violating other nations; sovereignty to, as TR himself bragged, "take" Panama, his basic approach to foreign affairs was similar to the one Ike consistently pursued: Speak softly and carry a big stick.

This approach is what later generations would call "foreign policy realism," an approach that asked three basic questions:

What is in the best interest of the United States?
What is likeliest to contribute to the peace and stability of the world?
What is within the scope of present capability?

Jimmy Carter's approach to foreign policy added a fourth question: What is consonant with US belief in human rights? But I would argue that this is not a stunning addition, since what is in the best interests of the country and that which contributes to peace and stability is consonant with a concern for human rights.

Nonetheless the tradition of foreign policy reaism, also pursued to a great extent by Franklin Roosevelt, sets in stark contrast to the naive strategic vision of Woodrow Wilson and his foreign policy successors. Wilson, like Lyndon Johnson after him, expressed the hope that his tenure would be concerned mostly with domestic issues. Those are what most consumed him and were what he felt best equipped to handle.

The crisis in Mexico, early in his tertm, demonstrated how out of his depth Wilson was when it came to foreign policy and national security issues. His decision to deploy US troops in Mexico was unnecessary and ill-advised, shrouded though it was in talk about democracy, human rights, and national honor. Wilson made up his strategic vision as he went along and began a tradition of what I call impositionalism pursued by Harry Truman in Korea, John Kennedy and Lyndon Johnson in Vietnam, and numerous tinier military actions undertaken by Johnson and Clinton.

Interestingly, George W. Bush, who had apparently thought little about foreign policy and national security issues before becoming president, has espoused and pursued a foreign policy that is more like Wilson than his father or Eisenhower.

Each new occupant in the White House begins, to some extent, in a reactive mode, seeking to be the antidote for the perceived deficiencies of their predecessors. If Barack Obama proves to be the Democratic nominee and the president, his approach to national security will have to involve more than being the Un-Bush. Whether it will be is, at this point, anybody's guess.

Great post.

Mark Daniels

Die Welt doesn’t specifically object to this but does contrast it with the likely expert advisors of Clinton (Holbrooke and Biden) and the clarity of McCain’s worldview, especially in the area of foreign policy.

Perhaps, but does it contrast to Clinton's favor among Europeans?

What exactly do both Holebrook and Biden have in common regarding foreign policy?

Unadultarated support, to the level of cheerleading, for the Iraq war.

And Europeans are going to be comforted by that? Perhaps some, but not many.

This is interesting.... I remember reading an article back in 1991 (before the election- and I think pre-conventions) in the Economist. The article didn't see how Clinton, a governor of a hick, no-name state of Arkansas could beat Bush, who was the sitting pres. of the most powerful country on earth and had a lot of foreign policy/diplomatic experience to boot. Well, we've seen that Bill did a much better job (both domestically and internationally) than either Bush 41 or Bush 43. On top of that he didn't get us bogged down in any wars (though I think Bush 41 was right to get us involved in the first Gulf war).

Mark, I don't think Obama is going to be the "un-Bush" the way that Bush was "anything but Clinton". I certainly believe that Obama will lead the nation in a better direction than Bush, but he will do so carefully.

Think of our current foreign policy as a minefield. When Bush came into office he wanted out of the minefield (away from Clinton's policies) as fast as possible, so he ran, setting off all sorts of mines. We see where we are today. I think when Obama finds himself in the middle of the minefield when he becomes President, Obama will look and think before stepping. He will set off a few mines (a minefield is a dangerous place for anyone) but he'll make it out because he's smart, he knows what's at stake and he'll listen to others. Obama doesn't want a "yes-man" to tell him that they agree with him that it's safe to step on a certain spot when they actually see peril.

Thanks, Robin for the interesting post!