Re-framing Realism: Barack Obama's Foreign Policy Development
Since the Wisconsin primary, Obama has fought a war on two fronts. Clinton and McCain, both seeking to turn hope into a liability, have gone after what they see as the biggest chink in Obama’s Teflon suit of armor: the idealism of his foreign policy.
With a rigorous assault on whether he is sufficiently “realistic” or “pragmatic” enough to challenge the evil-doers of the world, candidates and pundits alike claim he lacks the steel backbone necessary to stand up against folks who are self-professed enemies of the U.S. As if they were foreign policy older siblings, Clinton and McCain insist Obama does not sufficiently understand the world and that his campaign of hope and daisies and sunshine is a fundamental misapprehension of the world and the evil that lurks within it. In short, Obama doesn’t “get it” when it comes to the bad guys of the world. The challenge facing Obama is that he needs to systematically rebut this argument, but in a way that does not undermine the central rhetorical stance of his candidacy. As he moves to the general election, Obama needs to extend “Change you can believe in” beyond sloganeering into a theme of governance. So, in foreign policy, the game plan is simple: To challenge the notion that he is insufficiently realistic, Obama needs to “out-Realist” the hawks.
The line goes something like this: Any doctrine of realism must be grounded in reality. What good is a strategic policy that ignores facts about the world, ignores the reality of the Afghanistan and Iraq wars and, most chillingly, ignores the truths told by our own soldiers on the ground. What good is a foreign policy that holds science hostage to ideology -- only to see our friends and allies abandon us for our inability to face facts. A pragmatic realism is one that does not launch wars because of deeply flawed intelligence and then award national medals of honor to those who produced that erroneous data. By documenting and trumpeting how truth was ignored in the selling, design,and execution of this Administration’s wars and foreign policy, Obama can expand his slogan of “change you can believe in” into a campaign theme of advancing a pragmatic foreign policy that will no longer live in denial. Instead, he will map out how his administration will be advance a foreign policy that is anchored by a cold, clear assessment of reality, not desperately false wishes of what might happen.
With this framing shift, the speech lines fairly write themselves: “Is it not more realistic to believe that invasion and torture creates more enemies than friends? Is it not more realistic to believe that cooperation with allies creates more strength in the world to confront the real evil of nuclear proliferation? Is it not more realistic to believe that channels of communication – even with nations who disagree with us – will not create conflict but possibly prevent it?”
Recasting foreign policy back into the language of reality, rather than realism, enables Obama to transform his message without abandoning it. To me, this election has been all about “truth” -- in a way that most elections rarely are. There is a broad sentiment that things have gone seriously awry – militarily, economically, etc – and there is a clear sentiment the reason it has gone awry is the failure to either confront or tell the truth. As a result, the voters are looking for truth, not as a salve to heal the wounds to their worldviews, but because they think that truth (and reality) are seriously lacking from public policy debates.
And Obama needs to contrast in voters minds his own language of reality and the foreign policy "realists" who deny fundamental truths about the world. By making the language of the general election foreign policy debate between one of reality vs. realism, Obama clearly has the upper hand, especially since McCain is so closely wedded to Bush on the Iraq war. Why will this rhetorical stance work? First, I think the results so far in this election show an electorate seeking out, more so than usual, authenticity and truth-telling, liberals and conservatives alike. Look at all the candidates who have failed and why: Romney: Aside from real anti-Mormon bias within the electorate, he was seen as too phony, too willing to say anything. The same can be said of Edwards, whose hair and smile and sonny-boy demeanor struck many voters as inauthentic – even though his populist message should have struck a chord amid increasingly bad economic news. And, of course, Clinton’s troubles are anchored in both feminist-hating bias and a real, unavoidable conviction that she (and her husband) lie all the time. Those that have prevailed: Huckabee: Despite his insane opposition to evolution, he is clearly seen as a “telling it like it is;” McCain: despite enormous odds, no money, clear and intense opposition from Christian right and talk radio hosts, voters salvaged him from the wreak of his 2000 “straight-talk express.” And then there’s Obama, whose dulcet, preacher tones fairly resonate with capital “T” truth.
It doesn't really matter that Bush's foreign policy is one of errrant idealism. The public won't engage the "Idealist" vs. "Realist" debate. They will have an intuitive sense that reality has been ignored in foreign policy for too long and McCain is part of that commitment to an unrealistic foreign policy.
The long record within the Bush administration of ignoring reality gives Obama the chance to define the terms of a foreign policy debate that is in keeping with a central theme of his campaign and preempts a line of attack by the “realists.” In so doing he also targets a central weakness of McCain: his wholesale alignment with Bush on a very unpopular war.
Comments (13)
Hasn't Obama already done what you are suggesting?
"On the critical issues that actually matter I believe that my judgment has been sound and it has been judgment that I think has been superior to Senator Clinton's as well as Senator McCain's."
He's been very specific in speaking of Iraq, health care and NAFTA, and other issues -- hardly a "campaign of hope and daisies and sunshine."
February 28, 2008 6:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
Another aspect of realism is the capacity to assess costs and evaluate priorities. I have noticed Obama has lately been pointing out the huge cost of the Iraq War and how that cost impacts other priorities.
February 28, 2008 7:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
I don't think Obama needs to "re-frame" anything. He has already been making most of the correct points about our foreign policy, and has been persuasive and successful in making them in the Democratic primary. As he goes into the general election, he just needs to continue to do the same thing.
No matter how many times Clinton said or suggested Obama was naive about the way the world works and unprepared to handle foreign policy, as the nomination process and the debate went forward it became clear that Clinton's claims were simply not true, and that Obama in many ways - not just the famous case of Iraq - has shown better judgment, a broader vision and a more canny grasp of global affairs than Clinton.
Obama was more sure-footed and balanced in his response to the Bhutto assassination and the Kosovo declaration of independence, showing in both cases more realistic instincts than Clinton, and more alertness to potentially detrimental long-range consequences of feel-good statements and calls. And he staked out smarter positions on nuclear weapons, on Iran and on Latin America. Frankly, Clinton appears to be little more than an unimaginative hack when it comes to foreign policy, showing a go along to get along disposition, an interest group-fashioned foreign policy agenda, and little pronounced insight into the global trends that are changing the world and shaping the 21st century foreign policy context.
The same will be true of McCain. No matter how many times McCain tries to suggest the same things Clinton did, and tacitly points to his torture scars and gray hairs as his primary pieces of superficial evidence, the argument is just not gong to stick over time. That's because the simple fact is that MCCain does not understand the world as well as Obama, and as Obama presses his arguments throughout the summer, and debates McCain head to head, the obviousness of this fact will be revealed to all. As the weeks roll on, the poorly informed and cartoonish Bush-McCain view of the world will finally be revealed for posturing and dangerous foolishness it is.
Obama is a very persuasive speaker, and a clear and cogent reasoner. He presents sometimes complex arguments in a jargon-free and compelling way ordinary people can understand, and does this without the offputtingly haughty and peevish mannerisms of Gore, or the stumbling defensiveness and lack of confidence of Kerry. He is just going to take his argument confidently and directly to McCain, and beat him on the merits. This is going to be a long campaign. It's not going to be won with slogans and stupid PR tricks or bumper sticker framing devices.
Most voters haven't the slightest idea what the doctrine of foreign policy realism is, or how it differs from various forms of internationalism, idealism or whatever. They haven't read Morganthau or Niebuhr. Attempts to distinguish "realism" from "reality" are gratuitous gestures in the direction of academic IR folks, and will sail over voters heads at best, or even worse, seen as confusing and mushy double-talk.
February 28, 2008 7:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thank you. I enjoyed reading your thesis. It makes sense to me. Perhaps Obama may not use the "terminology" you suggest, but the broad themes make sense and would seem quite suited to his overall message. Obama seems to be a man who ingests information and then recasts it in his own terminology. I would not be surprised if that is exactly what happens to your ideas. I bet they turn up in some form, unique to Obama.
February 28, 2008 7:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
There is very little to go on as to what Obama's foreign policy might look like other than an early withdrawal from Iraq. I do like your notion of contrasting realism with reality and agree with its potential in the coming campaign. Realism is a belief in the correctness of our foreign policy for the past half century. Reality is the recognition that that foreign policy has led us into the Iraq debacle. It seems that in an Obama- McCain campaign Obama could very well use it to educate the public as to the bankruptcy of the previous conception of what "realism' entails.
He could use this campaign to point out it is not in America's interest to engage in endless war in pursuit of US domination of the globe. That our wealth is limited. Perhaps this wealth should be used to build a strong America here in the mainland and not in oversea adventures. This could be a revolutionary election if Obama could run, win and then begin to implement some of these ideas. I have no idea if that is how this campaign or his administration will develop or if it goes in this direction he has the leadership abilities to carry this out, but it is the mere possibility of this happening that makes me an enthusiastic supporter of Obama.
February 28, 2008 11:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
Realism in its most generous interpretation takes a grim view of human nature and applies it to the semi anarchical situation of hundreds of independent nation states that currently exists. It is Hobbes as translated from Man in a state of nature to the nation state in a state of nature. There is no controlling authority in the international arena as there is--for the most part--within the various nation states. There is no World Government with enforcement capacity.
You might disagree with Hobbes' assessment of human nature and/or you might disagree with the realists in their application of Hobbes' views to the international arena, but if you do so, you have to give an alternative theory as to "how the world works". You can't just pronounce Obama to have some magical power to see the world as it REALLY is. That's childishness.
February 28, 2008 11:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
the idealism of his foreign policy
And what's wrong with idealism?
whether he [Obama] is sufficiently “realistic” or “pragmatic” enough to challenge the evil-doers of the world
Obama has challenged the chief evil-doer, George Bush, and one of his accomplices, Hillary Clinton.
folks who are self-professed enemies of the U.S.
The US, unlike other major countries in the world, has enemies because of its aggression. Obama recognizes that the the US is suffering blowback from this aggression.
Obama does not sufficiently understand the world
Obama understands the world too well for the American Exceptionalists who feel threatened by his understanding.
Obama doesn’t “get it” when it comes to the bad guys of the world.
Is Douglas Reed a stalking horse for Hillary Clinton, one of the "bad guys"? It appears so.
Obama needs to extend “Change you can believe in” beyond sloganeering into a theme of governance
As Obama says, have 20 million people and all the major media been duped?
Comment: I love foreign policy discussions, including this one. But let's face it, gang, we have much larger problems at home, inluding the ones Andrew is highlighting, plus medical care, the environment and changing current policies that peddle US jobs overseas. These all require an end to war, the reduction of the obscene Pentagon budget and a halt to scaremongering about "the bad guys of the world" whose threat to Americans is statistically miniscule.
February 29, 2008 12:23 AM | Reply | Permalink
"I don't want to just end the war, but I want to end the mindset that got us into war in the first place."~ Sen. Barack Obama, January 31, 2008
If this be idealism, make the most of it.
February 29, 2008 12:27 AM | Reply | Permalink
I like it, well done. While I tend to agree that this is how he views things, I also feel that Obama should broaden his explanations in the manner described by Mr. Reed.
While the judgement theme has been sound, I think just connecting it to the single vote (essentially, that is what voters hear) without branching might backfire. Taking the approach suggested would allow him to really showcase the difference between the tired, old conventional wisdom practically embodied by John McCain who expected to be greeted with flowers and Obama's firmly reality-rooted view of studies the world, understanding and learning from history and the appreciation of different cultures.
I cannot wait for the day that Obama starts making the argument that being "tough on defence" should not be the Washington equal of getting a really large sports car but a thoughtful, agile and intellectual process. Where fiscal responsibility means making better decisions for the troops instead of wasting billions on mercenaries and Pentagon red tape. If he plays it right, he will not only neutralise but turn around the Republican trump card.
February 29, 2008 5:19 AM | Reply | Permalink
A great article Obama wrote in Foreign Affairs magazine back in July:
http://www.foreignaffairs.org/20070701faessay86401/barack-obama/renewing-american-leadership.html
I think he has great foreign policy skills. You don't have to have clouded Washington glasses to do foreign policy. In fact, it is better that you dont. A clear thinking president is what we need. Not one surrounded by "yes" men.
February 29, 2008 9:58 AM | Reply | Permalink
Thanks for that link. For some reason, while I've seen excerpts from that article, I didn't know where they came from. It may be a bit dated but it certainly shows the quality of his vision and wisdom.
February 29, 2008 6:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
Very interesting post! Foreign policy and attitude towards diplomacy are defining differences in the Clinton vs. Obama face off, let alone free trade and the war in Iraq.
Clinton and Obama have strongly disagreed on several foreign affairs-related issues:
- Obama stated his support in favor of talking with leaders of 'rogue' nations without preconditions, including the Iranian leadership and the newly-nominated Cuban leader, Raul Castro;
- the two candidates further disagree on normalizing relations with Cuba;
- Clinton supported the Senate resolution on the Iranian Revolutionary Guard, while Obama asserted that the Senate resolution on the Iranian Revolutionary Guard was paving the path for a military engagement with Iran;
- The two candidates also disagree on the U.S joining the International Criminal Court.
More on Clinton vs. Obama key differences on my recent TMP post
March 2, 2008 7:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
Actually, I find myself disagreeing strongly with just about everything Mr. Reed says. In particular, I disagree that Mr. Obama has to reframe his foreign policy to cater to the vapours and fainting spells of 'realistic' 'foreign policy hawks.'
Rather, my own reading is that Reed's 'realism' is fundamentally unrealistic and couched in the same old cynical nonsense of fear mongering that has been the raison d'etre of the Bush administration. Consider his own language:
Bad guys, evil lurking in the world, 'evil-doers', 'self-professed enemies of the US'? This is language and thinking straight out of the Bush administration. It speaks to a manichean black and white viewpoint that is not in the least bit realistic.
It's all very well to go skulking about in the shadows, dressed up in your Dad's trenchcoat and slouch hat, mumbling "Who knows what evil lurks in the hearts of ruling political factions in third world countries... the SHADOW KNOWS!!! BWAH-HA-HA-HA." I did that when I was five years old.
But I'm not five years old, and neither is Reed. Are Manichean concepts of good and evil useful or even relevant in terms of trade and foreign policy relationships with China? Is Russia still an enemy? Former enemy? Former friend? Frenemy? Post-Pre-Frenemous?
Has this whole GvE vibe ever paid off for America? A million corpses in Iraq in the 21st century. A million corpses in Latin American in the 80's in Reagan's dirty wars? A million corpses in Vietnam in the 60's? Is there a more tangible result
And if we really did endorse this 'Good vs Evil' dichotomy that Reed dresses up as 'realism', then how did that explain America's adherence to tyrants like Pinochet, Mobutu, Galtieri, Somoza, Marcos, the Shah and Suharto?
Oh, but never mind the past. 'Realist hawks' aren't concerned with the past, only here and now. They have nothing to learn from history.
So where are the 'bad guys' the 'evil doers' who need to be dealt with with spines of steel? It comes down to the usual suspects - Syria, Cuba, Venezuala, Iran, Lebanon (sort of), Libya (formerly), North Korea. None of whom actually pose a direct threat to American interests, none of whom are capable in any significant way of challenging the United States militarily or economically. They are bad guys because they are objecting to our activities in their regions past and present, and their very ineffectuality makes them safe.
But will a 'good guys/bad guys' hawkish foreign policy work anywhere else? Arguably, its failing in Latin America where a bloc of centre-left democratic governments - running from Argentina to Chile, Peru, Brazil, Ecuador, Venezuala and Bolivia, have effectively shut America out. Why? Because they see Americans as a destructive force. Given the history, its easy to see why.
Foreign policy hawkishness has also been failing in Europe, as the Europeans go their own way. It's failing with China, as we lose clout against the Chinese.
Ignored? Actively assaulted, raped, disembowelled and buried at a crossroads. Where Reed sees intelligence failures, I see a campaign of deception in cynical pursuit of geopolitical realism.
But here, Reed overlooks the central weakness of his argument: The Hawks supported the war. The Hawks were all for taking Saddam Hussein out. They still think the war was a good idea even now. The realists are no longer interested in how we got into Iraq. That's history, and we all know that history has nothing to teach them. They just think that we have to win... or stay the course... or something.
To be fair to Reed, it appears that he supports Obama's actual foreign policy proposals. Talk to your enemies, work with your allies, no more adventures, torture is bad.
Nevertheless, the underlying structure of Reed's thoughts seems to be more of same. Ultimately, Reed seems to simply want a more effective version of the 'International Cowboy.' Bush has proven to be an ineffective and inept edition, Clinton and Reagan are more effective versions.
At the end of the day, Reed's call strikes me as simply a call for more of same. Bush's foreign policy, but competent.
March 3, 2008 10:58 AM | Reply | Permalink