The New Hillary

Secretary of State Hillary Clinton visited Asia this week on her first outing as a member of the Obama Administration. She talked with leaders in Myanmar (Burma), Japan, South Korea, China, and Malaysia, and according to news reports, some of her comments were unusually candid. She emphasized economics and climate change, not human rights with China. She talked about North Korean regime change in Seoul, and wondered aloud if sanctions against Burma were useful. There’s nothing wrong with saying what’s obvious, she told reporters (Kessler, G.: Washington Post.com, 22 Feb 09).
(Clinton in China Feb 09 LA Times Photo)

But that is exactly what is not obvious. As she herself has said, diplomacy is a head game. Stating the obvious may not be to one’s advantage. Human rights organizations are furious with her for not emphasizing human rights issues in China. Others wonder if she is just trying to be well-liked or if she has any policy in mind, and if it is a policy, since when did the US no longer care about human rights?

But I think she is doing the right thing, and I confess I did not realize she had the flexibility to think in a different way, whether directed by Obama or not. Her comments show a subtlety of mind I did not know lurked there.

Her comments mark a sharp break with the Bush foreign policy. She is saying, we are no longer going to throw our weight around like the bullies we have been. We are now willing to talk plainly and listen with an open mind. That is a fundamental change in direction for US diplomacy and it is important to indicate to all, that is what is happening.

She is also saying, especially by choosing Asia for her maiden voyage, that our important future allies are not necessarily going to be in Europe but in Asia. That’s the truth, and it is smart to signal that, to both Asia and Europe. So there is a policy behind her remarks and it is much larger and more important than whether Tibetans should be allowed more autonomy.

The Chinese can be harsh in dealing with their own citizens, but so can we. They have a billion people to keep in check, three times what we have, with much more diversity in culture and language, and with with a fraction of the wealth and education we enjoy. “Human Rights” should be re-thought in less absolute terms. What do we know about how China works? We barely know how the US works.

The US has been the world leader in promoting human rights since the Carter presidency, and that should continue, but perhaps, in view of our abominable performance in the last eight years, with a bit more humility.

I am impressed with Clinton’s comments. If she continues in such a candid and yet subtly strategic way, she might well be the best secretary of state we have had in living memory. I never saw that coming.

Was Hillary Right?

I am surprised to see recent polls showing McCain and Obama going into their conventions virtually tied among the voting public (NY Times.com 8/20, Fox News.com 8/21). How can that be possible? When I see the candidates on the evening news, I see one man as the picture of Enlightenment clear thinking, rationality, sincerity, and compassion; the other a grotesque self-caricature sputtering empty slogans.

McCain yesterday vowed that he would bring the troops home from Iraq “with honor and victory,” while, he said, Obama prefers forfeiture. Does McCain think the war is an Olympic event? What is “victory?” Didn’t we achieve victory 24 hours after invading the country in 2003? What is forfeiture? Returning a sovereign country to its rightful owners? I cannot fathom how his mind works when he talks like that.

Voters polled said McCain was more prepared to be commander in chief. But why? Haven’t they read his Foreign Affairs article? (http://political-innocence.blogspot.com/2007/11/mccain-on-foreign-affairs.html). It is frightening. Wouldn’t we rather have a pro-peace president?

Of course voters have not read McCain’s Foreign Affairs article, or much of anything else either, and that’s the problem. Obama may be too far out in front of the crowd to be a natural leader. You can’t lead from a mountaintop; only from five paces ahead. And maybe Hillary was that leader. Maybe I was wrong about her. I have a long history of being a contrary indicator.

The Demo convention will be a tragedy if the pro-Clinton forces and the roll call vote turn into an anti-Obama self-indulgence. I think “Barry” (as Maureen Dowd calls him) could overcome such a fiasco and go on to win in November because the choice is so stark that I do not believe many voters will change sides. This is rural vs urban, educated vs uneducated, and that’s not going to change. But it could hurt turnout, which Obama must have oceans of.

It may be that Hillary was right insisting that she was the “electable” candidate. Looking back at the primaries now, where she won big, she may have been right.

I still believe Obama would be a president of a higher order, like this country has not seen in two or three generations; while another self-obsessed Clinton White House would be excruciating and dangerous for America. But the first step in the recipe for making rabbit stew is 1: Catch a rabbit.

Two Horse Democratic Race

It’s down to Clinton and Obama now and consensus thinking is that whichever does well on Super Tuesday will coast to the Democratic nomination.

I was sorry to see Edwards drop out today. I thought his drawing attention to government corruption was a worthy addition to the dialog. Every time I open my car door to exit and hear the obnoxious ding-ding-ding-ding “reminding” me to take my keys, I am infuriated again at the insurance lobby. What, exactly, is the government’s interest in keeping insurance company losses low? It’s manifest corruption. But I rant.

My main problem with Hillary is Bill. He is a clinically disturbed personality and I don’t want him anywhere near the Oval office. As recent events on the campaign trail have demonstrated, he cannot be controlled. He is a huge liability.

My second problem with Hillary is honesty, or lack of same. All politicians lie, as it is part of their job. The American people are not critical thinkers so empty slogans and feel-good sentiments are more effective than reasons and evidence. This has been well documented in the political science literature (e.g., Lau & Redlawsk: How Voters Decide: Information Processing During Election Campaigns. Cambridge University Press, 2006). In a perverse way then, Hillary’s prevarication is a strength, not a weakness.

Obama does not seem as overtly dishonest as Clinton, but he misleads by not saying anything. He gives good speech but since he has not been in the public eye long, we don’t know what he would say or do in a difficult situation. Of the ethnic violence in Kenya, his father’s birthplace, he calls for “reason and calm.” There isn’t really anything practical he can do about the situation but he also does not reflect on its meaning. He reveals nothing about himself whenever possible. His two best-selling books read like a series of Hallmark cards.

Obama has charisma, and according to Lau and Redlawsk, that matters a lot in people’s voting decisions. But how will he react when the Republicans roll out the siege engines in the fall? Can Obama be Swift-boated the way Kerry was? Everybody has skeletons. Can he talk about the meaning of race in America? We haven’t heard him do so yet. Can I visualize him confronting Putin, Kim Jong Il, or Ahmadinejad? Would he urge Olmert and the head of Hamas to have a cup of tea? Would he advocate cutting oil and corn subsidies to develop a rational energy policy (Illinois is one of the nation’s top corn producers)?

I haven’t seen enough of Obama to predict how he would react. This weakness leads Hillary to claim “35 years of experience” to her advantage, but that’s just hogwash. She has been an ordinary attorney most of her life. Her experience as First Lady counts for zilch. My wife is in the financial services industry but that doesn’t make me a stock broker. Clinton's recent record in the Senate is unremarkable but respectable, as is Obama’s.

When America is attacked again, who will respond better? Hillary will react much as George W. Bush reacted, with bellicose slogans and radical though ineffective actions designed mainly to “reassure” the public of her competence. Unlike Bush though, I believe her actions would be designed to affect ordinary citizens. She is not so hollow and confused as to invade some arbitrarily chosen country just to flex muscles.

Obama, I don’t know how he will react. He will give a stunning speech, of course. But then what? I believe he is thoughtful and intelligent enough not to act stupidly, and to listen to his advisors, something I am less sure about with Hillary. With Obama, his unknowns are the unknown unknowns, the worst kind. The bet is on his present persona as an index to future behavior.

That’s a bet I am willing to make, but I am a psychologist. I don’t think most people will make that bet. The average American, in the fog of Oedipal fantasy, wants God-like omniscience and omnipotence in the White House. That’s why they will vote for Hillary, then finally for McCain. I hope I’m wrong.

Clinton on Foreign Affairs

In the November/December issue of Foreign Affairs magazine, Hillary Clinton presents an essay about what she would do as president, with respect to foreign affairs (Clinton, H.R. (2007). Security and Opportunity for the Twenty-first Century. Foreign Affairs, 86 (6), Nov/Dec. www.foreignaffairs.org). The essay is one of a series by 2008 presidential hopefuls. I have previously reviewed essays by Barack Obama, Mitt Romney, John Edwards, and Rudolph Guliani.

Like Edwards in his essay, Clinton apparently believes that Americans are God’s chosen people, that we have the duty to spread the American way of life to all other people, whether they care to have it or not. Also like Edwards, Clinton seeks international respect and gratitude for American leadership in promoting what she terms, “The American Idea.” This messianic vision is deeply disturbing to me, and I believe it will be also to most world leaders. Societies are different, cultures and values are different, governments are different. It doesn’t make sense to assume that everyone should look like us. That is what the most extreme Islamic terrorists believe about themselves! It’s parochial, ahistorical, dangerous, and wrong, wrong, wrong. I did not expect Clinton go down this yellow brick road.

America is the richest and most powerful country in the world right now, like the Romans in their time and the Persians in theirs. This is our moment in history to be top dog. Responsibility does come with that. But for Clinton, “leadership” means to get all other countries to behave as we would like, using diplomacy of course rather than guns wherever feasible. But that’s lightly veiled tyranny, not leadership.

A second major disappointment in this essay is the dearth of ideas and specific proposals. Instead there is paragraph after paragraph of platitude and doublespeak, with just a few exceptions that I’ll get to in a moment. As putative Democratic front-runner before any vote has been cast, perhaps Clinton believes the nomination is hers to lose. In that case there is no percentage in saying anything unusual. It seems a shame to waste such a bully pulpit, but maybe her calculation is correct.

Clinton starts by lamenting America’s loss of status in the eyes of the world under the Bush administration. The rhetoric here is well-worn: snubbing of the U.N., unilateralism, Guantanamo, Abu Ghraib, ignoring the Israel-Palestine conflict, rejection of the Kyoto Protocol, and so on.

I happen to agree that those administration policies or inactions have been individually harmful, but what is Clinton’s specific complaint? Only that we have alienated allies at a time when we need global cooperation. That’s pretty tepid.

She yearns for the American “values, leadership, and strength [that] inspired the world for the last century.” Again there is an image problem in her view, when in fact that is the least important of all the challenges facing this country.

Clinton’s main concern is “to reclaim our proper place in the world…” presumably as God’s chosen people. Who voted for that? Nobody that I am aware of. That is a megalomaniacal vision, not a sober needs assessment. I find it frightening. I can only hope it is just boilerplate to recruit the mindless.

Her list of challenges facing the country includes the usual suspects: two wars, terrorists (she uses the propagandistic term, “war on terror”), nuclear proliferation, China, Russia, the Middle East, climate change and global epidemics. She fails to mention energy-oil, water shortages, growing population and how to feed it, and refugees. There is nothing about immigration, which by definition is an international issue. Some of these topics are taken up later despite their omission in the "challenge" list.

As would all other candidates, Clinton would rebuild the American military, although she offers no specific ideas about how, except to hint, intriguingly, that she would cancel the “Star Wars” missile defense program to fund a military upgrade.

Clinton is unquestioning in her belief that “the value of democracy will continue to inspire the world.” She is convinced that “The values that our founders embraced as universal have shaped the aspirations of millions of people around the world…” Odd then, isn’t it that not every country in the world has a democracy like ours, and many have no democracy at all? Could it be possible that democracy is not the panacea for the world’s ills? This idea is unthinkable for Clinton.

The War In Iraq
Clinton would end the war in Iraq. How? Safely, in a way that restores stability in the region, and engages countries around the world in securing Iraq’s future. Well, who could argue with that! How would it happen? She would convene a committee to draw up a plan to do it. When would it happen? In a deliciously ambiguous phrase, she says this committee would draw up a plan for withdrawal “starting within the first 60 days of my administration.”

It seems there is withdrawal, and there is withdrawal. Clinton would withdraw troops but order “specialized units” to remain and fight in Iraq, to combat al Qaeda and other terrorists. They would “also provide security for U.S. troops.” Troops? What troops? I thought they went home. Maybe not all did. These mysterious “specialized units” would also provide “training” for the Iraqis, and “some forces” would be left in the Kurdish areas. Hmm…

On the positive side, Clinton does realize that for long term success in the region, all the countries in the area must be engaged in stabilization efforts, from Turkey to Saudi Arabia. What is less clear is how all those players might be induced to work together better than they have so far.

Clinton is aware, as no other candidate has been in these essays, of the Iraqi refugee problem. Some 2.5 million Iraqis are now war refugees. Disturbingly, Clinton says it will take a “multibillion dollar international effort” to deal with that crisis, under the direction of the UNHCR. Again, few specifics are offered.

On Israel and Palestine, she would work to implement the basic idea that a Palestinian state would be established in exchange for full recognition of Israel’s right to exist. Great trick if you can do it. She mentions not a word about the Israeli settlements, the wall, refugees, or water rights.

The War on Terror
Unfortunately, Clinton adopts the same fear-mongering propaganda that the Bush administration has used so successfully. “Terrorists cells are preparing for future attacks” she assures us. But to her credit, she understands that education, intelligence, and law enforcement are the crucial tools in combating terrorism, not invading foreign countries. But there is the short term awkwardness of people trying to kill us.

Also smart is her plan to ramp up crop-substitution programs in Afghanistan to deprive the Taliban of opium funding and the government of much of its corruption. I don't think there is any crop that can substitute economically for opium, but if farmers planted coffee or soybeans but we paid opium prices for it, that would be cheaper than fighting an interminable war.

About Pakistan, Clinton hints suggestively that state boundaries mean little when problems are regional on the ground. This hints at an agenda for covert operations.

In her capacity as senator from New York, she slips in a little domestic agenda by saying she would invest in first responders to provide interoperable communications, something that, amazingly, has still not been done. She would also safeguard the transportation of hazardous materials. She does not mention hardening of the ports and nuclear plants.

Talking to Adversaries
Back to foreign affairs, Clinton criticizes the Bush administration for refusing to talk to Iran about nuclear weapons, but does not actually say she would do anything different. She notes that if Iran were to completely acquiesce to all Washington’s demands, a not very likely scenario, then she would be prepared to offer in return “a carefully calibrated package of incentives.” Ah, diplomacy!

Nuclear Arms
Unlike any other candidate’s proposal, Clinton would reduce America’s nuclear arsenal and urge Russia to do the same. This is an easy promise to make, since most of the arsenal has aged out anyway, and new conventional weapons are almost as deadly as the old nukes. Still, it is a good initiative for setting the tone for nonproliferation.

She would also seek Senate approval of the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty, another fine gesture, although again, we do all our nuclear tests with supercomputers these days anyway. A more meaningful proposal is to establish an international atomic fuel bank to control access for peaceful uses. That could work.

Geopolitics
Clinton offers multiple criticisms of Russia’s behavior, personalizing it to Putin, perhaps betting that he will be out of power by the time she gets in, not a bet I would make. What would be her stance toward Russia? To “make clear that our ability to view Russia as a genuine partner depends on whether Russia chooses to strengthen democracy or return to authoritarianism and regional interference.”

Well, nobody cares for “regional interference,” but that aside, Clinton paints a stark dichotomy: Russia can only be our partner if it rejects authoritarianism and adopts genuine democracy. But Russians like authoritarianism. Historically, they are accustomed to it. It works for them. Putin’s approval ratings are over 70% in Russia. Why should he adopt a democracy like ours? I think Clinton’s blindness to her cultural chauvinism is a serious flaw and a potential impediment to her effectiveness as president.

In one of the few really interesting and creative ideas in her essay, Clinton suggests that the U.S., China and Japan should join up to develop new clean-energy sources and energy efficiencies to combat climate change. China is well aware of its dependence on imported energy and of its dangerous carbon pollution problem. It might eagerly embrace a technology transfer from the U.S. and Japan in those areas. What we could expect in return is not said. But it is an idea that has potential and it could break the Kyoto Protocol standoff.

In a related idea, she proposes an international energy forum comprised of the world’s major carbon emitting nations, linked to the International Energy Agency, and to China and India. It sounds cumbersome, but it might get the right players talking about climate change and ecology.
Concerning Asia and India in particular, Clinton only avers that we must “cooperate on issues of mutual concern.” Hard to argue with that!

She has much the same advice for dealing with Latin America, although she is pointedly silent on the tricky international issue of U.S. immigration policy.

Clinton criticizes the African Union for not denouncing Zimbabwe’s Mugabe for his perpetration of economic disaster, but recommends only that we should “help Africans develop both the will and the capability to address their own problems.” Another not very incisive analysis.
She recognizes the threat of HIV/AIDS but does not associate it particularly with Africa. One interesting Africa policy is the suggestion that if there were a global system of carbon credits for curtailing pollution, “all of Africa can provide carbon credits to the West.” That would amount to massive foreign aid to Africa financed by Western businesses, not a model that has ever been tried, and not one likely to be well received in the Western business community. Creative, though.

Global Initiatives
In her second innovative idea (although it is actually similar to an idea of Edwards’), Clinton proposes an “Education for All Act” that would provide $10 billion over 5 years to train teachers and build schools around the developing world. Where this money would come from and how it would be distributed is not specified. In its outline it is a good idea, but without details it smacks of a hollow feel-good proposal.

A slightly more specific idea is for the government to work with NGOs and charities like the Gates foundation, (if they were interested in such collaboration), to “solve” problems like providing clean water, stopping HIV/AIDS and other diseases, strengthening labor and trade standards. She doesn’t have a specific proposal on the globalization of trade. There is probably nothing that can be said about that tropic which could not be excoriated by somebody.

Around the world in general, Clinton emphasizes that the U.S. must be clear about its position on torture, women’s rights, and human rights in general. As an American, I support the same values, but at the same time, I am aware that women don’t have too many “rights” according to the Quran, and it would be a bad mistake to stuff Western ideas up the noses of people who do not agree with them.

“Rights” of any kind are either declared or granted by someone in specific cultural contexts. Calling them universal does not make them so. I am against torture, slavery and human trafficking anywhere, but still, I would resist blanket condemnations and move quietly, with cultural sensitivity. Education, law enforcement, and economic incentives are the way to go, not public humiliation or nagging.

Clinton praises the fact that women are now more free in Afghanistan than they were under the Taliban. That is a good thing, but it came at quite a cost which we are not yet done paying. I’m just saying, think twice, act once when it comes to promulgating “rights” around the world.

Clinton closes with a 200 year old quote from Daniel Webster glorifying “the power of the American idea." Again I note that this American idea is above all, American. Not everybody sees things our way. Nobody else has our particular history and culture. If the most powerful nation on earth imposes its peculiar “idea” on the rest of the world, on the excuse that it is, after all, a “universal” idea, no good can come of it.

Conclusion
This was a deeply disappointing essay from Clinton. It was a lot bland noodles with just a few spicy sprinkles. I don’t expect the president to be an intellectual, but I do expect more self-awareness than this essay reveals.