Out of step, once again
by digby
I’m talking about myself:
On average, since the beginning of last year, 50 percent of Americans have disagreed with Obama’s handling of foreign policy, while only 38 percent have approved of it. Fifty-four percent of Americans don’t think Obama is tough enough on foreign affairs and national security, and 48 percent say the United States is less important and powerful than it was a decade ago. On the Iran deal, 49 percent disapprove of the plan to monitor Iran’s nuclear facilities and lift international sanctions, while only 21 percent approve. Thirty percent don’t know enough to say either way.
It’s always helpful to be reminded when you’re beliefs are clearly in the minority. It makes you less likely to say some stupid things under the assumption that everyone agrees with you.
For me, the second term foreign policy has been the best thing about the Obama administration. In fact, I thought it was his best characteristic in 2008 too, and it had nothing to do with his phantom Iraq war vote. I believed that many of his views on engaging the rest of the world were forward thinking, sophisticated and pragmatic. And in his second term he’s delivered on quite a bit about that, as much in what he refused to do as in what he’s done.
The administration is far from perfect. It’s too in love with secrets and spies and relying on something like the drone war is morally suspect and has consequences that don’t seem to have completely thought through. But on the whole I’ve been impressed with his willingness to resist the most hawkish elements of the government from time to time. It’s quite rare in a president.
That excerpt above is from a piece by Jamelle Bouie about Clinton’s speech yesterday. He surveys the foreign policy field as it is today making the point that Clinton has to sell herself in the environment that exists within those numbers. He looks at the Republicans:
Despite the advantage in public opinion, they’ve had a hard time offering a sharp foreign policy critique, in part because they refuse to budge from the worst ideas and strategies of the last GOP administration.
Iran is instructive. At every step of the argument over the nuclear agreement, Republicans have pushed maximum confrontation at the expense of diplomacy, rejecting the deal without offering an alternative. If elected president, for example, Florida Sen. Marco Rubio would renege on the deal and reimpose sanctions, as would Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker. Arkansas Sen. Tom Cotton thinks we should reject the deal in favor of a “credible threat of military force,” and Illinois Sen. Mark Kirk compared the Iran deal to Nazi appeasement. “This is the greatest appeasement since Chamberlain gave Czechoslovakia to Hitler,” he said. The most flamboyant assault on the Iran deal came Wednesday, when Donald Trump and Sen. Ted Cruz gathered with hundreds of supporters to blast the administration. If the deal goes through, Cruz argued, Obama would “quite literally be the world’s largest financier of radical Islamic terrorism.”
Yes, the public wants a more active foreign policy. But it isn’t interested in reckless confrontation. People remember the last war, and aren’t thrilled with the chance for another one. To that point, 59 percent of Americans still think the Iraq war was a mistake, and 55 percent oppose putting ground troops back in the country. What’s more, about half of Americans are wary of too much foreign involvement. Put differently, the public wants an alternative, and it isn’t the GOP.
That’s the situation Clinton is supposed to finesse. And it’s not a simple task. Due to a number of factors, not the least of which is the already “genderized” nature of the two parties’ identification in the public mind, going after Clinton as a weak sister on national security was already baked into the cake. These numbers make it all the more likely that she will take an aggressive posture in foreign affairs. And that’s not good. Clinton has a fighting spirit that domestic partisans often admire. She is battled hardened from years of fighting spurious attacks by Republicans. But that characteristic is worrying when it comes to foreign policy.
Obviously, compared to any Republican in the field she’s Mahatma Gandhi. And as Bouie points out in his article there really are political considerations — peaceniks like me are in a distinct minority. The American people obviously want a president who is less “nuanced” than Obama has been. One can only hope that if she is nominated and then elected to the office that Clinton will be skilled enough to navigate these treacherous waters wisely.
Bouie concludes with this:
Clinton’s approach may be the right tack for a general election. Again, voters want change. But they support diplomacy and don’t want another war or occupation. Clinton offers a third way: Obama-style policies merged with hawkish rhetoric. It satisfies the public but keeps Clinton to the left of the Republican Party, and clears her path for attacks on GOP candidates. Which, incidentally, is what she did. “That’s not leadership, that’s recklessness,” said Clinton of Republican rhetoric. “It would set us right down the very dangerous path we’ve worked so hard to avoid. … Great powers can’t just jump agreements and expect the rest of the world to go along with us.”
This is one situation where one really hopes that it’s just all talk.
Update: I should make it very clear that Clinton gave a compelling defense of the Iran deal in her speech. Any hawkish rhetorical flourishes added to the rest of it don’t undermine her clear support for peace in this extremely important agreement.
.
.