Obama Is No Jimmy Carter

Jimmy Carter: Four years of foreign policy defeats.

Well he’s no Jimmy Carter. That’s part of the good news about Obama.

Having listened to his campaign rhetoric, the understandable fear was that he would be Carter redux – particularly on foreign policy. So far, he’s been just the opposite. Dare I say it? Maybe he’s even Reagan redux. – at least in the sensible, hard-realism he’s bringing to key issues.

Blowing up in America’s face. Carter, as we painfully may recall, brought what he thought was high-minded idealism to foreign policy, as, he claimed, an antidote to the domination of U.S. foreign policy-making by Kissingerian Realpolitik. Advancing human rights, proclaimed Carter, would replace Kissinger’s advancing U.S. interests. Well, it blew up in Carter’s – and America’s – face, as we suffered the worst four years of foreign policy defeats in our history, not the least of which was our undermining the Shah of Iran, leading to the Ayatollahs’ victory and the problems for us that continue flowing from it.

Very different (at least so far) is the Obama/Hillary direction. Just listen to what he told viewers of CBS’ “60 Minutes” in mid-March. When asked about the U.S. mission in Afghanistan, he clearly stated that it was U.S.-centered. He said nothing about advancing democracy (as George W. Bush naively did) or about making life better for Afghans – though that could follow from what we’re doing in Afghanistan. Instead he welcomingly said explicitly that our troops are risking their lives in Afghanistan to make “sure that Al Qaeda cannot attack the U.S. homeland and U.S. interests and our allies. That’s our No. 1 priority.” It’s a statement – clear and explicit – that he repeated at least twice on his European tour in early April.

Yikes. So we’re in Afghanistan to protect ourselves, to help ourselves. So that’s our No. 1 priority. How refreshing; how sensible. That could have been Ronald Reagan speaking – or Jeane Kirkpatrick, who profoundly influenced Reagan’s foreign policy and whose seminal essay “Dictatorships and Double Standards” serves even today as a road map for the kind of foreign policy that advances, as it’s No. 1 goal, America’s interests.

Hard-headed. Just as hard-headed have been Hillary’s performances on her Asian and Mideast trips. In China she shucked all the rhetoric about human rights and Tibet, while wisely focusing on the key security and economic issues at the core of America’s ever-emerging, always-complicated relationship with an ever-more powerful Beijing. Her statements were right, the tone was right, her actions were right. What a great surprise. And, importantly, she signaled that she would continue the extremely valuable semi-annual cabinet-level meetings between us and the Chinese, launched by the Bush Administration. In the Mideast, she was just as solid [more about that in a later post].

Bottom conservative line: We should be delighted that Obama on foreign policy is no Jimmy Carter and (in candor) no George W. Bush, whose sophomoric idealism served U.S. interests so poorly [more about that also later]. As Ronald Reagan always made clear, in words and actions, the purpose of American foreign policy is to serve America. Obama is nodding his agreement.

Click Here to Comment on This Post