Stanley Kurtz [1] makes an important point about Clinton and Obama, in the upcoming election in ’08, in light of the death of Gerald Ford, and the retrospectives that spring from it….
It’s clear in hindsight that Ford would have been tougher than Carter, based on party affiliation alone. In 1976, however, we were not that far from the days of bipartisan foreign policy. Kennedy may have raised a phoney “missile gap” in his debate with Nixon, but at least that tactic accurately indicated that Democrats and Republicans alike shared a tough Cold War stance toward the Soviet Union. Back in 1976, there was no good reason to assume that Carter’s answer was anything other than proof that, like Truman and Kennedy, he would be as tough as any Republican. After all, both the Democrat Johnson and the Republican Nixon had been targets of the anti-war left. The McGovern nomination notwithstanding, it was not yet clear in 1976 that Republicans and Democrats had fundamentally different approaches to foreign policy. It took the contrast between Carter and Reagan to show us that difference. At the time, however, Carter was an ex-military man from the South, and his quick reply to Ford’s error seemed proof that he would stand up to the Soviet Union.
So are we now beyond the possibility of being fooled by superficial campaign positioning? I don’t think so. Hillary has been posing as a foreign policy moderate for some time now. Obama is apparently as left as left can be, yet he covers this stance with soothing moderate rhetoric. In a way, Obama is the new Carter. Carter won, despite his relative obscurity and inexperience, because he was the breath of fresh air needed by a country exhausted by Watergate. Carter’s religious convictions and seeming moderation were emotional balm for a traumatized nation. It never occurred to anyone that Carter’s foreign policy might make the first serious break from America’s Cold War toughness. Best keep all this in mind when listening to Clinton and Obama. They’ll jump through campaign hoops to prove their toughness. But in the end, we’ll get a Jimmy Carter foreign policy from either one of them.
The problem is, not many… indeed, very few, have that historical perspective… either simply not knowing it, such as young moderates, or those in denial, such as Carter/Clintonite Democrats, who figure letting down our guard to be a good thing.
I am unconvicned of Obama being as Kurtz calls him, “The New Carter”, but certainly his foreign policy, what we know of it, is similar, as would be the disaster that would result from it. But Krurtz gets it correctly…in a choice between Clinton and Obama on such matters, I’m unclear on our ability to fit water between them. Their policies would be equally disasterous, and we as a nation, cannot afford either of them in the big chair.
?