Friday, January 22, 2010 - 1:13 AM
Picking up on a theme I discussed earlier this week, I see that both Fred Kaplan and Matthew Yglesias conclude that a politically chastened Obama will not find any salvation in foreign policy. They both give similar reasons -- anything of significance will require Congressional approval, and Congress ain't in the giving mood.
I don't really disagree with Kaplan and Yglesias, but I do think they're missing something important: with an economy shedding jobs, the last thing Obama wants to do is pump up his international profile. Even if he could claim successes, foreign policy achievements -- particularly of the non-military kind -- during an economic downturn are pretty much a dead-bang political loser. Why? Because even successes suggests that the president cares more about the rest of the world than his own countrymen.
Think about it. The last time a sitting president focused on foreign affairs in the middle of a recession was George H.W. Bush. That was great from a policy perspective, but a political disaster for Bush. I won't swear to this, but my impression is that Obama's standing has taken a hit whenever he's gone overseas in the past year.
On the other hand, during a recession presidents can tell the rest of the world to go f*** themselves and they won't lose much in the way of popularity.
Just a glance at the December 2009 Pew survey shows the extent to which Americans are looking inward. And who can blame them -- it's a pretty bad economy and there's double-digit unemployment. This tendency is exacerbated by something that Kaplan does point out:
In the post-Cold War world, with the fracturing of power and the decline of influence by any one country or bloc, the problems that he faces are simply harder—more impervious to military, economic, or diplomatic pressure—than they would have been 20 to 50 years ago.
I'd say "post-Great Recession world," but that's quibbling. If Americans are fed up with how long it takes for anything to get done in Congress, wait until they pay attention to foreign affairs. The Doha round is on year nine and counting. With important exceptions, the United States has military forces in practically every country it's intervened in since 1945. Who knows how long a global warming treaty -- or the reconstruction of Haiti -- will take.
Are there exceptions? Sure, but they're ephemeral. I suspect the follow-on to START-II would get through the Senate, because, really, is now the time to pick a fight with Russia? Osama bin Laden's head on a pike would probably warm the cockles of most Americans. But they wouldn't stay warm for long.
No, it's the economy, stupid. The healthier the economy, the more political capital for Obama, and the less likely he will be punished for taking an interest in foreign affairs. If Obama has any political self-preservation instincts at all, international relations will be done on the DL for a while.
It's unfair, and very problematic for foreign policy wonks, but no one said life is fair.
Don't think the history is quite right here
The elder George Bush didn't get in political trouble for encouraging the peaceful reunification of Germany or even for throwing Saddam Hussein out of Kuwait. He got in trouble later, because the economy went into a downturn that spooked many Americans and Bush had nothing to say about it.
Since we've recently had eight years of a President Bush showing us how many other ways there are to screw up in the White House, it's hard to remember that the first President Bush sucked all the intellectual life out of the Republican Party's domestic policy agenda. He was completely reactive, and outright passive when there was nothing to react to. The public interpreted this as personal indifference (which was probably unfair) and bankruptcy as far as domestic economic policy was concerned (which was absolutely fair). One of the reasons Bush struggled so after violating the "no new taxes" pledge he had made in 1988 was that the pledge -- purely a campaign device -- was about the only domestic policy idea the public identified with him.
Not that it did more than add a little political insult to injury, incidentally, but Bush rather campaigned in 1992 on laurels won a couple of years earlier. His foreign policy toward the end of his term, beginning with the disaster of Saddam Hussein's recovery after the Gulf War ended and continuing through the administration's muddled response to the implosion of Yugoslavia, caused more problems than it solved. This may also have had to do with the elder Bush's disposition to favor passivity and reaction, a much less effective way to approach policy when world events aren't all going your way.
Now, having said all that, I basically agree with Dan. President Obama is not going to be a foreign policy President anytime soon. The domestic to-do list, and particularly an economy going through disorienting changes that are mostly not cyclical, will simply take up too much of his time.
This meme of people on the left--that Obama faces problems so much harder than those who came before him--is such a stupid bore. Imagine a world in which the US is in an undeclared war with a country as powerful as us, with imperial ambitions and a world-spanning philosophy that many find attractive, one that invades other countries, plans to put nuclear weapons in a country 80 miles off our shores, I mean, get freaking real. Imagine a 13% inflation rate, interest rates of 20%...
The leftists who advocate this are either blinded by ideology or it's something more sinister: the old story of the left's soft bigotry of lowered expectations...
Not sure what the point is here, but two wars promising to stretch out years into the future, a economy in freefall and a trillion dollar deficit do seem a bit more challenging that what other recent Presidents had to face when they came in. I'd agree with anyone who argued that the Soviet Union and post-oil shock inflation were major problems in every way, but the Presidents who dealt with them at least had the benefit of doing so with a functioning government that hadn't been abused for eight years by a grossly incompetent predecessor.
Now, one riposte to this is traditional among Bush Republicans. It goes something like, "Eek! Eek! The left! The left!" There are some who find this a thoroughly persuasive argument, who would indeed feel that way at any time and under any circumstances. Has anyone, after all, ever refuted the "boo on all the liberals" theory of governance? Certainly Barack Obama never has, and though the military quagmires, stained national reputation and economy in smoking ruins he had dumped on him might inspire sympathy in some quarters he's pretty much a liberal himself. So boo on him, too.
I have to disagree with Dan. The economy was in the doldrums in the 1970s, but Nixon opened China and Carter worked to negotiate a Middle East peace. Those were two of the only bright spots of the decade and both were fairly popular at the time and are thought of as successes by historians. How did Dan miss those?
Did you read the post? Foreign policy won't save a President.
Nixon was reelected before the opening with China, because he was able to run against the 1960's with McGovern as the cooperative candidate of "Acid, Amnesty and Abortion."
And Middle East peace or not, Carter lost the election in 1980, and served as a Republican bogeyman for the next dozen years.
How did you miss that?
Actually, Nixon's opening to China occurred during his first term. So this would have been a point in Insideorion's favor -- had the economy been in a bad way in 1972. It wasn't.
The economy was better by the end of 1972, after the so-called Nixon Shock and the Administration's wage and price controls and fiscal stimulus undertaken in 1971. Nixon went to China in February, 1972, so arguably, when he went, the economy was not in a good way...
Daniel W. Drezner is professor of international politics at the Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy at Tufts University.
Read More
(7)
HIDE COMMENTS LOGIN OR REGISTER REPORT ABUSE