The New ForeignPolicy.com
Global News : Passport : Ricks : Drezner : Walt : Rothkopf : Lynch
The Cable : Madam Secretary : Net Effect : Shadow Govt. : The Argument : The Call

Not much foreign-policy experience? Wanna be president? Get in line

Wed, 03/12/2008 - 10:07am

The Obama campaign came out swinging Tuesday with a memo by former State Department Policy Planning chief Greg Craig -- who is most noted for defending Bill Clinton in his impeachment trial -- detailing the holes in Hillary Clinton's claims that she has amassed vast amounts of foreign-policy experience over the last 15 years. Since Clinton is making these claims, I guess they deserve a closer look. But in general, all this talk of a foreign-policy threshold for presidents is profoundly overdone.

Pop quiz: Name the presidents since World War II who might have passed this so-called threshold? Certainly not Clinton's own husband, who arguably came to office with the least-developed foreign policy mind of any 20th-century president. Ike, LBJ, Richard Nixon, and George H.W. Bush are four who might pass "the threshold." Maybe Gerald Ford, who served more than two decades in the House, then was Nixon's veep. But the truth is, most presidents would not qualify, including JFK, Jimmy Carter, George W. Bush, and, yes, Ronald Reagan, whom many credit with winning the Cold War.

I care deeply about foreign policy, so I'd like to think my choice in candidates is based in part upon their understanding and experience in the conduct of international affairs. But let's be honest: Experience is hardly a guarantee that a president's policies will be sound. Consider Nixon, who served two terms as vice president under General Eisenhower, then went on to no great glory in Vietnam. George H.W. Bush's victory in the first Gulf War looks good in hindsight, but many trash-talked him at the time for not taking out Saddam. Need I mention Dick Cheney? The idea that foreign-policy experience is a silly litmus test for presidents was pointed out with some eloquence by the New York Times' Helene Cooper in a piece which, unfortunately, ran last August while everyone was at the beach. It's worth going back to:

But does time spent as United Nations ambassador, director of the Central Intelligence Agency, or first lady really cut much ice when you become commander in chief? A surprising number of experts on American presidencies said 'no.'"

It shouldn't be that surprising. There's just very little evidence that foreign-policy experience leads to good foreign policies in office.

Mike Boyer | Permalink |

| Comments? Login or register

( filed under:

North America | Decision '08 | Politics | U.S. Foreign Policy

)

How is inexperience a good

by Benjamin on Wed, 03/12/2008 - 10:40am

How is inexperience a good thing? I think this notion that Obama would like people to buy that judgment matters, but not experience, is helped by the self-selection process of presidential candidates. A guy who has been living in Brussels all his life or practicing foreign diplomacy probably hasn't been making the domestic political connections necessary to run for the highest office in the land.

Additionally, we have this little issue of selection size with the American presidency. To take six or seven of anything and then declare -- well, foreign policy experience is irrelevant -- doesn't seem to be a good way to understand the underlying characteristics that make a good president. Of course, it can help you understand who gets elected president.

I do think judgment matters more than experience, but you should be gaining more judgment with experience. If you don't believe Cheney and Rumsfeld have gained better judgment throughout their careers, that's fine -- many people agree with you -- but I imagine the Council On Foreign Relations' elders would have a bit of a problem with it. You'll find idiots in the ranks there, too, but on the whole, I'd agree with them that experience matters, and in many cases, creates the judgment that you need to make wise decisions. No country for old men, indeed.

Yeesh

by apropo on Wed, 03/12/2008 - 11:44am

It is frightening how Obama supporters are unable to admit ANY flaw in their candidate. I mean, seriously, why not just admit that it's a weakness, but say that Hillary doesn't have a notable advantage and the only candidate who does, McCain, you find has flaws X,Y, and Z, and therefore don't support him.

And as far as "most presidents would not qualify, including JFK, Jimmy Carter, George W. Bush, and, yes, Ronald Reagan, whom many credit with winning the Cold War."

1. JFK: Idealism met reality; Made HUGE early blunders with epileptic decision-making, most ugly was Bay of Pigs
2. Jimmy Carter: Idealism met reality; huge blunders, ended up completing changing his foreign policy stance after being confronted with the reality
3. George W. Bush: I doubt I have to continue
4. Ronald Reagan: Made a serious of huge blunders with again, no consistency to his foreign policy.

All terrific examples of the risk of inexperience.

It's not that experience necessarily means that the leader will be wise, but not having it makes you less likely to make decisions.

It's hard not to see a lot of JFK and Jimmy Carter in Barack Obama. But with regards to foreign policy, that's scary.

I don't think it's an issue

by sashenka on Wed, 03/12/2008 - 2:34pm

I don't think it's an issue of Obama supporters being blind to his lack of experience - but I do happen to agree that talking about experience without qualifying that experience is completely useless. There are plenty of people with "experience" in foreign policy - experience at being absolutely incompetent at it. Current administration officials comprise, indeed, make up a large number of those. Ideological neo-cons such as those that came up with the Iraq strategy and oversaw on the ground implementation have a lot of experience, and I would prefer that in the future they are kept as far away from foreign policy decisionmaking positions as possible.

And in that sense, judgment is more important. If you are intelligent, a quick learner, and blessed with common sense and good judgment, than your ability to tackly foreign policy decisions, as well as any other policy decisions, is significantly better than an individual with so-called experience but poor judgment.

Well then, I would rather

by apropo on Wed, 03/12/2008 - 2:59pm

Well then, I would rather not have Presidents with great judgment but little experience like Jimmy Carter and John F. Kennedy, because when they get their first taste of Presidential experience that "judgment" is terribly off.

An analogy I would use is firing a weapon. Judgment is akin to marksmanship, being able to group your shots tightly. Experience is what allows you to adjust your sights so that not only are you shooting in tight groups, but you're actually hitting the target.

It took Kennedy and Carter a while in office to adjust their sights, and many suffered for it. And it's not a Republican/Democrat issue, Reagan also made a lot of mistakes adjusting his sights before he did anything right.

Democracy is a Crapshoot

by Lure D. Lou on Thu, 03/13/2008 - 9:24am

How can anyone who hasn't been a President claim Presidential experience? There is nothing that anyone has done as a Senator (or VP or Governor) which would qualify them for the job on Day 1. All that we are left with are questions of character, the quality of their ideas and the people they surround themselves with. Also, let's face it that no President makes decisions in a vacuum....we should insist that the candidates name their 'kitchen cabinets' as soon as possible so we can get a clue of who will be advising them. The idea of an isolated individual making momentous decisions solely on the basis of their own assessments is not only impractical, it's downright scary. The exciting thing about Democracy is that we get to roll the dice every 4 or 8 years....sometimes we pick a winner but most of the time we are disappointed. Tant pis! It's better than the alternative.