The Links
get liberaloasis
get bill scher
get truth
get blogged a-c
get group blogged
get local blogged
get beltway blogged
get congress blogged
get econ blogged
get multimedia blogged
get green blogged
get blogged d-l
who needs drudge
get labor blogged
get law blogged
get science blogged
get health blogged
get feminist blogged
get immigration blogged
get big shot blogged
get liberal
get left
get blogged m-r
get for. policy blogged
get iraq blogged
get iran blogged
get israel blogged
get arab blogged
get god
get godless
get church & state
get religious right
get cults
get blogged s-z
get canadian blogged
get country blogged
get expat blogged
get blogged 0-9
get investigative
get inside the system
get media analysis
get radio blogged
get polls
get framed
get literary blogged
get mom blogged
get dad blogged
get libertarian
get moderate
get both sides
get it all
the blog

Wednesday Jul 25, 2007

Maintaining the Conservative Foreign Policy Frame

Sen. Hillary Clinton is seeking to prey on the potentially weak self-esteem of Democratic primary voters, by picking a gratuitous fight with Sen. Barack Obama.

During this week's debate, Obama said he would be "willing" to meet with the leaders of Iran, Syria, North Korea, Venezuela and Cuba in his first year as president, saying , "the notion that somehow not talking to countries is punishment to them -- which has been the guiding diplomatic principle of this administration -- is ridiculous."

Clinton chastised him at the debate, saying "you [don't] promise a meeting at that high a level before you know what the intentions are. I don't want to be used for propaganda purposes. ... I will use a lot of high-level presidential envoys to test the waters."

In fact, Obama did not "promise" a meeting, the question was whether he'd be "willing." Nothing in his answer indicated he wouldn't take the obvious first step of lower-level meetings. (And saying "I" in this context does not necessarily mean himself personally, anyway.)

Yesterday, Clinton went a step farther, calling Obama's remarks "irresponsible and frankly naive."

This may well be smart short-term politics for Clinton.

By talking down to Obama while echoing conservative frames about negotiation, skittish primary voters may feel more comfortable that she can handle the eventual GOP nominee in the general election.

(In much the same way primary voters thought John Kerry was more electable because he was a veteran.)

But it's awful long-term politics for us and anyone '08 hopeful actually interested in fundamentally changing our foreign policy.

The neocon foreign policy debacle is a major opportunity to debunk conservative premises and reframe our foreign policy discourse, so we stop equating talking with weakness and saber-rattling with strength.

That is exactly what Obama was trying to do in his answer. And Clinton deliberately stepped on it.

Good for her perhaps, but bad for building a case for a new foreign policy.

An important side note: a way to enhance Obama's answer to that question is offered in the foreign policy chapter of my own "Wait! Don't Move To Canada!".

When America deals with another country, instead of only talking to the people in power or to a single opposition party, we should deal with groups representing all people's and parties representing all ideologies in that country. That way it will be evident that America is not trying to dictate who is in power in other countries for its own ends, but that we are willing to work with whomever sovereign peoples choose to represent them, now or in the future.

So, don't hesitate to open to the door to meeting with the leaders of Iran, Syria, etc., but at the same time, pledge to meet with opposition leaders as well.

This should be part of a larger effort to reframe foreign policy discussion and positively define the principles and objectives of a liberal foreign policy vision -- namely, promoting credible democracy and eradicating poverty to defeat the terrorist threat.

If it's clear to the public where we want to take the country and the world, and we have a game plan how to achieve it, we can fundamentally reframe the debate.

Obama took a step towards doing that. Clinton took that step back. All of the candidates need to go farther.

Posted by Bill Scher on Jul 25, 2007 email post email Spotlight / / You are in Democratic Party/ Foreign Policy
Posts Near Jul 25, 2007
Jul 22, 2007How Did That Safe Haven Get There?

Jul 29, 2007Radio Radio