06-21-2003, 03:15 PM
1. The president does indeed spend plenty of time on domestic policy, as every president does, however, lately that has not been perceived as "newsworthy" to the same weight as the international issues. Our recent tax cuts bruhahaha is a very internal discussion.
2. Your comment on the focus in re internal versus external rings of some truth, however, no President can escape foreign policy. Like WJ Clinton before him, the President, also former governor, 'gets' internal issues better than 'international issues.' The problem with governorship as preparation for Presidency? The US is engaged in too many places to pretend the world is not out there. I guess one way to characterize the past two years is 'having been forced into an arena' rather than having actively pursued a particular plan, since 2000, that got the US to where it is today. A 'reactive' policy versus 'proactive policy.' However, those characterizations are a bit simplistic.
3. President Clinton lurched from crisis to crisis for 8 years as well, starting with Somalia. He brought a great deal of naivete into office, and a certain lack of focus. For example, his first big battle with Congress was . . . gays in the military? He had far bigger and more important fish to fry, to include the national health care initiative he supported, as did Mrs Clinton, yet he poisoned the well with his attempt to get around Congress' authority as to codifiying the rules for the military. Had he waited a year, having built up a little street cred and referent power, I suspect that fight would have gone far differently than it did. For some reason, this very capable politician forgot how politics worked. When he went back to his normal style, that of getting people, from both parties, on board with issues, his success rate was remarkable.
What made Clinton more palatable to European allies was his personal belief in internationalism and multilateralism. Ironically, he was trying to implement George Bush's (senior) 'new world order' without a clue as to where the traps and pitfalls lay; that myopia bit him hard in Mogadishu. (The 'do more with less' attitude he brought to defense policy was a great example of being dealt a winning hand -- like a Kings-sevens full house -- and throwing away the three kings in hopes of two more sevens being drawn into the hand to make four sevens. Hope as a method?)
That mess, to which the previously well demonstrated inefficiency of multinational forces was blamed far too heavily, IMO, and the US Army/SpecOps planning and decision cycle far too little, set him up for some nasty 'in the trenches fights' about lending assistance to the UN in Bosnia, and elsewhere. His mideast peace initiative was also a crisis to crisis bandaid, and IMO doomed to be a 'scrap of paper.' Unlike Carter, he tried to set up a viable peace agreement without buying off enough of the players. He really had to use another approach, since the PLO et al are not quite the same kettle of fish as the nation of Egypt.
The biggest screw up the American people committed, IMO, was that in 1992 they did not re-elect George Bush. I submit that Bush actually understood foreign policy, and had a reasonably coherent vision of where he was going. The problem was, he could not, and did not, sell his domestic vision well at all in 1992, and that cost him the election. It also cost the US constancy of purpose in foreign affairs as we transitioned from the Cold War to whatever the hell we call what is going on now: the Multipolar Melee, perhaps?
US Foreign policy in a nutshell under President Clinton?
"Work with others as much as you can, integrate a global economy as fast as you can, but when you get pissed of at someone, launch the Cruise Missiles."
A bit of a soundbyte, I confess. :D
2. Your comment on the focus in re internal versus external rings of some truth, however, no President can escape foreign policy. Like WJ Clinton before him, the President, also former governor, 'gets' internal issues better than 'international issues.' The problem with governorship as preparation for Presidency? The US is engaged in too many places to pretend the world is not out there. I guess one way to characterize the past two years is 'having been forced into an arena' rather than having actively pursued a particular plan, since 2000, that got the US to where it is today. A 'reactive' policy versus 'proactive policy.' However, those characterizations are a bit simplistic.
3. President Clinton lurched from crisis to crisis for 8 years as well, starting with Somalia. He brought a great deal of naivete into office, and a certain lack of focus. For example, his first big battle with Congress was . . . gays in the military? He had far bigger and more important fish to fry, to include the national health care initiative he supported, as did Mrs Clinton, yet he poisoned the well with his attempt to get around Congress' authority as to codifiying the rules for the military. Had he waited a year, having built up a little street cred and referent power, I suspect that fight would have gone far differently than it did. For some reason, this very capable politician forgot how politics worked. When he went back to his normal style, that of getting people, from both parties, on board with issues, his success rate was remarkable.
What made Clinton more palatable to European allies was his personal belief in internationalism and multilateralism. Ironically, he was trying to implement George Bush's (senior) 'new world order' without a clue as to where the traps and pitfalls lay; that myopia bit him hard in Mogadishu. (The 'do more with less' attitude he brought to defense policy was a great example of being dealt a winning hand -- like a Kings-sevens full house -- and throwing away the three kings in hopes of two more sevens being drawn into the hand to make four sevens. Hope as a method?)
That mess, to which the previously well demonstrated inefficiency of multinational forces was blamed far too heavily, IMO, and the US Army/SpecOps planning and decision cycle far too little, set him up for some nasty 'in the trenches fights' about lending assistance to the UN in Bosnia, and elsewhere. His mideast peace initiative was also a crisis to crisis bandaid, and IMO doomed to be a 'scrap of paper.' Unlike Carter, he tried to set up a viable peace agreement without buying off enough of the players. He really had to use another approach, since the PLO et al are not quite the same kettle of fish as the nation of Egypt.
The biggest screw up the American people committed, IMO, was that in 1992 they did not re-elect George Bush. I submit that Bush actually understood foreign policy, and had a reasonably coherent vision of where he was going. The problem was, he could not, and did not, sell his domestic vision well at all in 1992, and that cost him the election. It also cost the US constancy of purpose in foreign affairs as we transitioned from the Cold War to whatever the hell we call what is going on now: the Multipolar Melee, perhaps?
US Foreign policy in a nutshell under President Clinton?
"Work with others as much as you can, integrate a global economy as fast as you can, but when you get pissed of at someone, launch the Cruise Missiles."
A bit of a soundbyte, I confess. :D
Cry 'Havoc' and let slip the Men 'O War!
In War, the outcome is never final. --Carl von Clausewitz--
Igitur qui desiderat pacem, praeparet bellum
John 11:35 - consider why.
In Memory of Pete
In War, the outcome is never final. --Carl von Clausewitz--
Igitur qui desiderat pacem, praeparet bellum
John 11:35 - consider why.
In Memory of Pete