The closing argument: Experience versus management

December 28, 2007 – 1:18 am

It is clear that in Iowa, the debate is not  about experience. It will be a fight between Mitt Romney’s money and Mike Huckabee’s churches. There are real doubts that Huckabee can sustain a challenge to any mainstream GOP candidate. Ultimately, his foreign policy and other flubs might create real problems. One imagines the pressure of the establishment and the media turning on him in a big way.

The fight in New Hampshire seems increasingly the decisive one on the GOP side. (Of course, if Fred Thompson were to come in 3rd in Iowa, that might shift to South Carolina) There, the fight is between Romney and John McCain. Especially in the context of the Bhutto assassination, McCain is trying to frame the debate as around experience, as is Hillary Clinton. Romney is focusing on judgment:

“If the answer for leading the country is someone that has a lot of foreign policy experience, we can just go down to the state department and pick up any one of the tens of thousands of people who spent all their life in foreign policy,” he said. “That is not what a nation needs in a president. The person that is president of the United States we look to have leadership skill. Which is the ability to assemble a great team of people, to be able to guide and direct them to understand what decision has to be made on the basis of data and analysis and debate and deliberation. An individual who knows how to make difficult decisions.”

Romney is focusing on his ability to "manage", something long-time campaign-mouthpiece Hugh Hewitt has focused on. There is a reason that Hewitt and Romney focus on management skills. He doesn’t have much in terms of experience. As Hugh says in his book on Romney:

And Romney knows the war. He he worked to learn its complexities and the nature of our diverse enemies, constantly reading the sorts of books that must be absorbed.

McCain contrasts this "book-learning" with his knowledge. From the Des Moines Register:

"I knew Benazir Bhutto. I know Musharraf very well," McCain told an audience of about 200 at the Elks Club in Urbandale. "If I were president of the United States I would be on the phone right now and I would be meeting with the National Security Council."

Seemingly a contrast between book-smarts and street-smarts. McCain knows the actors (thus his thoughts about Putin, which President Bush seems to have gotten wrong and McCain right) and operates from that position. One gets to argue from data though. How have people argued in the past from the input of experts? Ronald Reagan, of course, rejected the experts on "tear[ing] down that wall" and the SALT Treaty. He even created a new intelligence agency, the Defense Intelligence Agency because he wasn’t satisfied with the experts at the CIA.

Of course, if you rely too much on the experts, you run into the problem of being "brainwashed by the generals and the diplomats," to quote Romney’s father.  (National Journal/MSNBC notes that Romney is closing on, in part, his father) It seems that if you take Romney’s "judgment" answer, you are trapped by your advisers, a problem that Reagan transcended.If you have your own experience, you have something to work with.

I think that I know where I would prefer to be. I wonder where the people of New Hampshire will land.

Tags: , , ,

By eye | Comments (3)

Why foreign policy experience matters

December 27, 2007 – 10:35 am

Imagine what would happen if this happened on the first day of a Barack Obama or a Mitt Romney presidency, from the New York Times:

An attack on a political rally killed the Pakistani opposition leader Benazir Bhutto near the capital, Islamabad, Thursday. Witnesses said Ms. Bhutto was fired upon at close range before the blast, and an official from her party said Ms. Bhutto was further injured by the explosion, which was apparently caused by a suicide attacker.

That’s why Michael Medved said:

 In the last week before the caucuses, voters are finally taking a serious look at which candidate represents the most plausible commander-in-chief. McCain’s biggest advantage in Iowa, New Hampshire and across the country involves his military background, personal heroism in Vietnam, and courageous consistency concerning the Iraq War. The unmistakable success of the surge (even Harry Reid now admits that the new policy has delivered big time military progress) validates McCain’s leadership and underlines his expertise on defense and foreign policy. A month before making up their minds, citizens may cast about for a “fresh face” or an “agent of change,” but when they face a fateful decision on caucus night or primary day they generally prefer a president who’s ready to lead the ongoing war on Islamo-Nazi terror from day one.

For all the guy’s warts, John McCain really is ready to  be commander-in-chief.

Tags: ,

By eye | Comments (4)

McCain, Putin, and why experience matters

December 19, 2007 – 11:38 pm

UPDATE: My friend Erick at Redstate makes the same point.

Today, John McCain got some press for stating, as a number of people had already, that David Petraeus should be Time’s Man of the Year, not Vladimir Putin. He is transparently correct.

But there is a broader point that should be made in the context of the GOP’s presidential nominating contest. Look what McCain said in 2000 about Putin. (H/T Instapundit) The guy understood what Putin was. President Bush, who got many things right in our foreign policy, got Russia horribly wrong. If he had more experience, he might have gotten it right. And having good advisers isn’t enough. Condi Rice, a Sovietologist, should have known better.

Never mind McCain being right on Iraq.

So when we have these discussions about people’s foreign policy credentials, we should at least give credit where credit is due. Experience, at least in McCain’s case, would have mattered. As we look forward, we need to remember that. When people attack Mike Huckabee for his foreign policy but praise Mitt Romney, Fred Thompson, or Rudy Giuliani, we should remember something fundamental. Their foreign policy statements are ghost-written. John McCain’s aren’t. That’s a real difference.

This shines an important light on National Review’s endorsement of Mitt Romney, which I discussed previously. They had a conference call today to defend it. I didn’t hear a single supportive question, and no one spoke up in favor of their endorsement. Ari Richter of the Concord Monitor asked why so little discussion of foreign policy twice. The first time, Rich Lowry responded that all the candidates were pretty similar. They shared the same views, so the only differences are execution.

But you know what? I don’t think that’s true. Experience and demonstrated judgment matter in this stuff. A lot. And it says a lot about National Review that they are playing that down. And John McCain’s statements today and almost 8 years ago demonstrate that.

Tags: ,

By eye | Comments (4)

Defining news story of the cycle?

November 27, 2007 – 11:27 am

We might have just found the issue and story that crystalizes the anxieties of all Americans around a protectionist message. The story is:

Citigroup Inc., the biggest U.S. bank by assets, will receive a $7.5 billion cash infusion from Abu Dhabi to replenish capital after record mortgage losses wiped out almost half its market value. … the state-owned Abu Dhabi Investment Authority

Let’s put the pieces together.

  1. We have a shadowy Middle Eastern monarch. A King. He is loaded up to the gills with oil money.
  2. We are worried about Middle Eastern terrorism.
  3. We have a domestic housing crises that risks being a larger economic crisis.
  4. We have an intangible crisis of confidence involving globalization.
  5. This is about our banks and our money. Now some king in the Middle East tied to oil — and inevitably terrorism, legitimately or not — makes money if I don’t pay off the whole balance on my Citibank credit card.

Remember the 80s when people were taking sledge hammers to Japanese cars? How do you take sledge hammers to banks? Owned by Arabs. Etc.

This a made for demogoguery moment. If you thought Dubai Ports was bad (and, btw, I think that the President got it right, but you knew I was a rabid internationalist) just you wait.

Tags: , ,

By eye | Comments (5)

Bolton, 2008, and foreign policy

November 13, 2007 – 5:41 pm

Today, John Bolton spoke to Rob Bluey’s and Heritage’s Conservative Blogger Lunch. Allegedly, we were talking about Bolton’s new book. Rather than focus on the book, Bolton urged us to make foreign policy an issue in 2008 and then took questions.

I asked two sets of questions, one about the race for UN Secretary General, the allegations of corruption, and the role of China, and another about the need for new institutions. While I got some great lines, (like "I wish we had a foreign aid budget for buying votes at the UN") the broader point that I came out of this meeting with was something that has been bothering me for a while, but fits with Bolton’s overall theme.

It is clear that the international system is at the end of an era. We won with Cold War with institutions like the GATT, the development banks, NATO, UN, NPT, Bretton Woods, and the EU. However, it is clear that these institutions, with the partial exception of the EU, are fully dysfunctional. The WTO (once the GATT) seems to have run aground on Doha. And it seems clear that a Democratic administration and a Democratic Congress will be resistant to further trade agreements that deepen globalization. No one really knows what to do with the development banks, but it is not clear what problem they are solving. Their current mission bears little resemblance to the early ones. It is clear that the US, UK, Spain, Canada, Sarkozy’s France, and the staff of NATO know where they want it to go. But getting the rest of the organization to sign up is going to be harder. The UN is in free-fall, totally incapable of addressing the hard questions. (of course, one wonders whether it should be for addressing the hard questions) The Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty is … umm… huh? We are trying to ignore it with India, with El-Baradei’s blessing. Other countries are walking away. And it seems that it at least needs to be somewhat retooled and reconceived in a time of nuclear power (as a response to global warming). When I was in Warsaw about 6 weeks ago, someone on CNBC-Europe said, "Bretton Woods II has failed. It is time for Bretton Woods III." And the EU is on a whole new mission.

Meanwhile, we are struggling with how to extend the Geneva Conventions to an opponent that consists primarily of non-state actors. Non-state actors are negotiating international agreements.

I don’t know what the answers are. John McCain has proposed a League of Democracies, that is part of an answer. I still have trouble seeing a clear foreign policy from the other GOP candidates. And the Democrats are struggling to be honest about living up to our obligations in Iraq, and showing no courage on the international trade agenda, and a very reactionary policy towards the rest of the institutions. (with, again, Clinton being marginally more responsible than the others)

One of the inspiring stories for me as I considered getting into politics was Nixon talking about his trip to Europe where he became convinced of the Marshall Plan. Then he went home and tried to educate Americans. His Bircher-filled congressional district changed positions after a lecture series, and decided to support one of the largest foreign aid programs in world history.

Can you imagine anyone with the courage to do that? Can you imagine a serious debate about this? The Democrats are more interested in screaming than being serious. And Mitt Romney is talking about "Reagan enterprise zones." (at least, I should say, he recognizes the problems of the WTO, just not the broader questions)

Tag:

By eye | Comments (1)

Earth to Romney: We aren’t on the Human Rights Council

October 18, 2007 – 2:44 pm

Today, Governor Mitt Romney called for the US to pull out of the UN Human Rights Council. According to the AP:

"The United Nations has been an extraordinary failure of late," Romney said in response to a question at a pancake house along the coast of early voting South Carolina. "We should withdraw from the United Nations Human Rights Council."

Turns out that we don’t actually have a seat on the Human Rights Council though:

Actually, the United States doesn’t have a seat on the human rights council, which it has been boycotting.

With that kind of knowledge, Romney may need to call in the lawyers after all…

It also turns out that he was just trying to keep up with the Joneses:

Romney was sharing the political attention in this state with GOP rival John McCain, who is on his second consecutive day of campaigning here.

McCain, in an interview with The Associated Press on Tuesday, accused both Russia and China of causing gridlock in the U.N. Security Council and hindering the world body’s ability to sanction Iran or address pressing matters in Darfur, Burma and other trouble spots.

Difference was… John McCain knew what he was talking about.

Tags: , , , ,

By eye | Comments (4)

Clinton’s dishonest foreign policy

October 10, 2007 – 11:23 am

The Democrats talk about restoring America’s role in the world. Hillary Clinton, in particular, talks about her ability to do so. Of course, for all of her husband’s post-White House international fame, it is worth remembering how low his international reputation was. This was a guy who used his veto of a UN Secretary-General as a domestic political issue in 1996. This is a guy who signed international agreements with no chance of passing, just to preen for the media. The world understood at the time.

Now Hillary Clinton is trying to remind the world why they hated the Clintons. She wants to submit international treaties to 5-year reviews. If she doesn’t like them she wants to walk away from them.

Hillary Clinton, frontrunner for the Democratic party’s presidential nomination, on Monday said that all US trade agreements should be evaluated every five years and, if necessary, amended.

The process should start with the North America Free Trade Agreement, which was the signature trade pact of her husband, Bill Clinton, when he was president.

Don’t these people realize that international trade is now the fundamental building block of our foreign policy? Don’t they understand that our trade relationship is why our relationship with Europe will be good over the long term?

The Europeans have a new term for this kind of politics. Schroederism. After Gerhard Schroeder’s embrace of totalitarian Vladimir Putin and attack of the United States for domestic political reasons. (of course, maybe he just wants a paycheck)

I certainly have a lot of disagreements with the Bush administration on foreign policy, especially on tone. But Clinton’s dishonesty and irresponsibility remind me of why I am a Republican.

See also Dan Drezner, who also gets it.

Tags: , , ,

By eye | Comments (0)

Senator Thune introduces McCain at AFP

October 5, 2007 – 9:32 am

Senator Thune introduced John McCain at the Americans for Prosperity reception last night.

I thought it was a very good introduction. It highlighted McCain’s record as a anti-spending guy. Thune calls him the "lobbyist for the taxpayer" in contrast to the "lobbyist for the spending groups."

He also makes the point that McCain is taken seriously by our military and our allies and other international leaders. A similar point was made today by a bunch of former GOP Secretaries of State, Secretaries of Defense, and National Security Advisors. In my travels and exchanges as the International Secretary of the Young Republicans, I have to say that John McCain is deeply respected abroad. A pro-war, hawkish Republican is one of our most respected leaders abroad. That’s an important thing.

I videoed McCain’s speech, but it was really jittery. I think that AFP will have the video later.

Tags: , ,

By eye | Comments (0)

Lech Wałęsa: Clarity and inspiration from Europe

September 26, 2007 – 5:43 pm

This weekend, I was an attendee at the European Ideas Network, an annual 3 day seminar of center-right European politicians, think tankers, academics, and business leaders. There were sessions about a huge range of topics. I can’t imagine a similar forum in the states in either party.

One of the speakers was Lech Wałęsa, the former President of Poland. He is, perhaps, the last remaining great Cold War leader. His speech might have had a subject, but what I heard was moral clarity and a kind of leadership that you don’t see today. He started with a story about Pope John Paul II’s first visit to Poland after becoming Pope. He said that the KGB needed lessons about how to cross themselves like regular Poles. The fact that they could learn, that they could bring themselves to cross themselves, was a sign that athiestic communism could be defeated. Even KGB officers had to cross themselves; thus there was hope.

Here was a man who was there to settle deep, long-term, moral and existential questions, not technocratic ones. Would someone trust the electrician from Gdansk to fix the healthcare system? Probably not. He certainly had nothing to say about globalization and the challenges of today. He said this to a room of technocrats. Many of those technocrats thought he was a fossil, even if he was once inspiring.

It occurred to me while I was listening to that Wałęsa was the right man the for his time.  Ronald Reagan was also the right man for the right time. A time with 18% inflation, confiscatory taxes, a sense that the West was losing the Cold War, and a deep, deep malaise. He fixed all of those. (perhaps Volcker fixed the inflation…) Reagan left office in success. However, Wałęsa entered government in later, and, eventually, left office in 1995 in disgrace. Building a post-Soviet Poland was not a task that he was suited for.

This made me wonder what the various candidates on the GOP side were "the right candidates" for.

  • Rudy Giuliani is clearly the candidate of a muscular response to the War on Terror. There isn’t much subtlety in his policies, but that may just be the theater. Most likely, they will be somewhat generic Republican policies.
  • Mitt Romney is clearly the leader for a time of technocratic questions. He celebrates burying himself in data and comes up with answers. He is not the candidate that you want to lead a country at war. He still strikes me as the sort of person you want to be chief of staff. Brilliant administrator. He is probably the right guy for our country if our biggest concerns are economic ones. Trivialities about foreign policy, but probably good ideas about taxes and, even, healthcare.
  • John McCain is the candidate of a more nuanced approach to the War on Terror. Respected around the world, but in a way that would provide a very robust response to our international challenges. He is also someone to speak to a country that is at a loss about itself and its institutions. But many of his domestic policies are unclear. Healthcare? Taxes? He had made clear that these don’t drive him.
  • Fred Thompson is, perhaps, the candidate who narrowly wants the party to get more conservative. I am not sure.

Which candidate is the candidate for today? For today’s Republican party, I see Giuliani and McCain being the most natural answers. For a party that wants to step back from Bush’s interventionism — back to putting education, healthcare and immigration on the front burner like the pre-9/11 Bush — Romney would be the answer. I don’t think that’s where the party is.

Thoughts?

Tags: ,

By eye | Comments (2)

Sarko, Sego, and the Public Employees

May 8, 2007 – 10:28 am

Even though I follow and try to be involved in European center-right politics, I have mostly avoided the Sarkozy love-fest on the American right. However, I think that E.J. Dionne had a nugget that I think captures the deep truth of what happened:

And where Royal won by almost 3 to 2 among public-sector workers (she also carried students and the unemployed), she lost private-sector workers (as well as the retired). The left can’t win without a better showing among workers in the private economy.

In 1989 ,Stephen Harper, today the Conservative Prime Minister of Canada but then the Policy Director of the Reform Party, wrote in a memo to Preston Manning, the head of the party, that the core conflict of modern politics is between the private sector workers on the right and the public sector workers on the left, not a distributional one.

In the "most economically developed" states, that is essentially the conflict. Look at California, where the public employee unions are public enemy number one for most Republicans. Quite correctly so.

Going back to France for a moment, consider this nugget from the Economist’s European blog:

But the big question, as one said to me this afternoon, is what happens now. Will Sarko, the quintessential man of action, actually be able to carry out his campaign promises: to cut the personal tax burden from a maximum of 60% to 50%; to impose heavier sentences for repeat offenders; to lower unemployment by allowing the easier hire-and-fire measures that are normal elsewhere; to relax the rules of the 35-hour week (“work more to earn more” was Sarko’s biggest campaign slogan); above all, to reform the pension rights of the public sector and guarantee a minimum of public service whenever France’s public-sector workers indulge their appetite to go on strike?

The American labor movement has shattered. We now have the service workers union, SEIU, and the public employee unions, AFSCME (but also AFGA) who are on the cutting edge politically. The industrial unions do not matter much in France (8%, even less than here) and they no longer dominate the debate here. It is the public employee unions who are truly bankrupting our country. (And France’s)

Something to consider as we enter what may be the next phase of political and economic development. Is this the face of politics in the age of globalization?

Tags: ,

By eye | Comments (0)