THE PLANK APRIL 10, 2008
-
Read Later
READ LATERAvailable only to subscribers. SUBSCRIBE TODAY
-
Listen
ARTICLE AUDIO
- Font Size
The New York Times has a great article today about the battle between neoconservatives and realists to win John McCain's favor. The most interesting passage might be this:
"One of the chief concerns of the pragmatists is that Mr. McCain is susceptible to influence from the neoconservatives because he is not as fully formed on foreign policy as his campaign advisers say he is, and that while he speaks authoritatively, he operates too much off the cuff and has not done the deeper homework required of a presidential candidate."
That's quite an indictment, coming from his own supporters no less!
I mention this because McCain has made foreign policy knowledge his main line of attack against Barack Obama. The idea that Barack Obama doesn't understand simple facts about foreign policy is the basic frame for all of McCain's criticisms. Mccain recently declared, "Senator Obama doesn't understand national security issues." Following the Wisconsin primary, when Obama's nomination became virtually inevitable, McCain asked, "Will we risk the confused leadership of an inexperienced candidate who once suggested bombing our ally, Pakistan?” (Of course, this is a lie, but that's beside the point.) Almost every McCain shot at Obama tries to reinforce the idea that Obama is a foreign policy ignoramus.
Of course McCain is the one who tends to bungle basic facts. He has repeatedly confused the basic Sunni-Shiite sectarian divide that's absolutely fundamental to grasping the Middle East. Obama, meanwhile, may be inexperienced, but he's extremely smart and really has done his homework. He's impressive speaking about foreign policy both in formal speeches and off the cuff. McCain's attacks are a case of the pot calling the kettle a pot.
Aside from that, I think this line of attack represents a huge strategic blunder for McCain. Even if it works, McCain will drive expectations for Obama's understanding of foreign policy so low that he can't help but exceed them. Indeed, the most likely outcome is that the two candidates will debate, and Obama will prove himself as knowledgeable, or probably more knowledgeable, at which point Obama will clear the bar to be commander-in-chief and McCain's best issue will be gone.
If McCain's campaign was smart, they'd do what Republicans usually do, which is to frame the question not as one of knowledge but one of conviction -- that Democrat may have lots of book learning, but I'm the only one who understands in my gut how evil the bad guys really are. Instead, McCain is defining the issue in such a way that he's almost bound to fail.
Update: A Republican source with whom I have spoken takes issue with the sourcing of the article in question, and lack of on-the-record comment by pragmatists other than Lawrence Eagleburger who are advising John McCain. I don't find the article questionable, because presidential campaign advisers are extremely reluctant to let their names appear in the newspaper, but this Republican asked that their objections be noted and I see no reason not to share their opinion. I also find the fact that the GOP is objecting to be notable in and of itself--I don't get emails from GOP officials very often (or, for that matter, from Democratic officials). I would surmise they see the Times story as highly damaging to the McCain narrative, and thus set out to push back quickly against any commentary taking note of it.
--Jonathan Chait
15 comments
You're probably right about McCain's best tactic, but I suspect that he would feel dirty using the conviction angle and thus be uncomfortable doing it.
- miceelf
April 10, 2008 at 3:47pm
Cue you know who to write a long rant about "Obama's politics of goo," his unwillingness to discuss NATO, the falling dollar, China, Russia, and the Asian century to come. Surely he'll conclude with a paragraph about Obama's arrogance vs. McCain's statesmanship. What's the point? Nobody knows.
- ralphnelle
April 10, 2008 at 4:06pm
If you look at McCain's foreign policy evolution, he's gone through some big changes over the years. (TNR has chronicled these.) This may be honest adaptations to new situations, or maybe a new foreign policy camp gets his ear for a while. This is really pretty scary if McCain doesn't know anything about foreign policy. He's already said himself that he doesn't know squat about economics. What's left?
- rozenson
April 10, 2008 at 4:08pm
PS. "susceptible to neocons because he's not really informed"- why does that sound eerily familiar?
- miceelf
April 10, 2008 at 4:12pm
I would hope that we learned our lesson about "convictions" from George W. Bush. But then again, I thought that before the 2004 election.
- stgla
April 10, 2008 at 4:21pm
If McCain's campaign was smart, they'd do what Republicans usually do, which is to frame the question not as one of knowledge but one of conviction -- that Democrat may have lots of book learning, but I'm the only one who understands in my gut how evil the bad guys really are. Instead, McCain is defining the issue in such a way that he's almost bound to fail.
I agree. The GOP should have gone with Colbert. He's a winner.
- Maxblum13
April 10, 2008 at 4:34pm
Thus far I have been stunned and disappointed to learn that McCain seems to be little more than a loudmouth lightweight.
- ralphnelle
April 10, 2008 at 5:02pm
McCain is going to run as a old line Conservative Democrat against a Liberal Democrat. He is going to do his damn most to paint himself as being so much in the center that John Kerry offered him the VP post which he reluctantly turned down. Look at his planned swing through Dem districts.
- blackton
April 10, 2008 at 5:52pm
"Mr. McCain is susceptible to influence from the neoconservatives because he is not as fully formed on foreign policy as his campaign advisers say he is . . . ."
NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO . . . .
This sounds distressingly familiar.
Also: Jon, you're wrong about McCain's weakness. Obama can't "win" or "tie" a substantive debate on foreign policy because the judges -- American swing voters -- don't know jack about substantive foreign policy. They don't judge on substance, they judge on attitude. Obama will say, "Actually, Senator McCain is mistaken; it's not the Shiites, it's their mortal enemies, the Sunni." And McCain will reply, "Sunni, Shiite, it doesn't matter -- if they get in our way, we'll run 'em over." Obama looks like the pedantic elitist and McCain looks like the tough guy: advantage McCain.
- cnalls
April 10, 2008 at 7:58pm
Abd what about Obama's foreign policy? Does anyone know what it is?
www.latimes.com/.../la-na-obamamideast10apr10,1,7516320,print.story
"Allies of Palestinians see a friend in Barack Obama
They consider him receptive despite his clear support of Israel."
By Peter Wallsten
Los Angeles Times Staff Writer
- jacksondyer
April 10, 2008 at 11:35pm
jackson,
Is that tongue in cheek? Yes, Obama's foreign policy is obvious to anyone who can read. Here's a glance at his position on Israel:
On Israel
* Ensure a Strong U.S.-Israel Partnership: Barack Obama strongly supports the U.S.-Israel relationship, believes that our first and incontrovertible commitment in the Middle East must be to the security of Israel, America's strongest ally in the Middle East. Obama supports this closeness, stating that the United States would never distance itself from Israel.
* Support Israel's Right to Self Defense: During the July 2006 Lebanon war, Barack Obama stood up strongly for Israel's right to defend itself from Hezbollah raids and rocket attacks, cosponsoring a Senate resolution against Iran and Syria's involvement in the war, and insisting that Israel should not be pressured into a ceasefire that did not deal with the threat of Hezbollah missiles. He believes strongly in Israel's right to protect its citizens.
* Support Foreign Assistance to Israel: Barack Obama has consistently supported foreign assistance to Israel. He defends and supports the annual foreign aid package that involves both military and economic assistance to Israel and has advocated increased foreign aid budgets to ensure that these funding priorities are met. He has called for continuing U.S. cooperation with Israel in the development of missile defense systems.
- ralphnelle
April 11, 2008 at 1:43am
I agree with cnalls. The "Sunni-Shia" distinction doesn't play in middle America, and harping on McCain's gaffe makes his critics sound like elitists. To Obama's credit, he is not as tone deaf to this as are his high tone supporters.
I think McCain will win on the security issue, but it remains to be seen who will have a better message on domestic matters. I recently reread an analysis of McCain written by Crowley before he became the presumptive GOP candidate. In it, Crowley criticized McCain for advocating a tax cut for middle income families, saying that it would create even larger deficits. Yet, when Obama came out with essentially the same position, Crowley was silent.
- r-ennis
April 11, 2008 at 10:47am
TNR would never publish such an unflattering photo of Obama, their anointed hero.
- r-ennis
April 11, 2008 at 10:49am
Yesterday, Jon wrote a post entitled, "McCain's Advisors Think He's a Lightweight."
- Anonymous
April 11, 2008 at 11:38am
Jamie, below , derides my citation of a New York Times story about spats between John McCain's foreign
- Anonymous
April 11, 2008 at 3:03pm