The Democrats debate: Hillary opts for the status quo
By Max J. Castro
The debate among the candidates for the Democratic nomination for president held last week revealed at least two things. One is that there is a better, more democratic, more engaging, and more entertaining way to have a presidential debate than the traditional one. The other is that Hillary Clinton, the party’s leading candidate for the nomination, is bad news for anyone in favor of a fundamental change in the logic of U.S. foreign policy.
The winner of the debate was not Hillary, Obama, Edwards, or any other candidate. The format was the clear winner. The questions submitted by common citizens through the YouTube web site were often pointed, at times poignant, and occasionally outrageous. But, more than anything, unlike typical journalist questions they were personal, laden with emotion, and real.
Many of the issues raised — the deaths of Americans in Iraq, the date for ending the war, the role of religion in politics, gay marriage — might have been raised in any debate. Yet it is not the same for a reporter to ask a politician about his position concerning gay marriage than for a lesbian couple to confront a candidate with their life situation.
One question provoked far more post-debate controversy and commentary than any other.
By Max J. Castro Read Spanish Version
The debate among the candidates for the Democratic nomination for president held last week revealed at least two things. One is that there is a better, more democratic, more engaging, and more entertaining way to have a presidential debate than the traditional one. The other is that Hillary Clinton, the party’s leading candidate for the nomination, is bad news for anyone in favor of a fundamental change in the logic of U.S. foreign policy.
The winner of the debate was not Hillary, Obama, Edwards, or any other candidate. The format was the clear winner. The questions submitted by common citizens through the YouTube web site were often pointed, at times poignant, and occasionally outrageous. But, more than anything, unlike typical journalist questions they were personal, laden with emotion, and real.
Many of the issues raised — the deaths of Americans in Iraq, the date for ending the war, the role of religion in politics, gay marriage — might have been raised in any debate. Yet it is not the same for a reporter to ask a politician about his position concerning gay marriage than for a lesbian couple to confront a candidate with their life situation.
One question provoked far more post-debate controversy and commentary than any other. Would the candidates be willing to meet the leaders of Iran, Syria, North Korea, Venezuela, and Cuba, without preconditions, during the first year term of their term?
Barack Obama said yes because the Bush administration’s policy of seeking to punish adversaries by not talking with them is ridiculous. Hillary Clinton said she would not promise to meet because she did not want such a meeting to be used for propaganda purposes. John Edwards said he would be willing to meet with the leaders but qualified his answer slightly by saying he would want some understandings in advance.
In the days following the debate and sensing an opportunity to paint Obama as inexperienced and not tough enough, Clinton said Obama’s predisposition to meet with people like Chavez and Castro was “irresponsible and, frankly, naïve.”
Parrying Clinton’s attack, Obama said he was not speaking of having “these guys over for a cup of coffee” and said Clinton was manufacturing a controversy. Obama counterattacked by saying the American people did not want “Bush-Cheney light.” Clinton then implied that, by comparing her with Bush and Cheney, Obama was failing to practice the “politics of hope” as he had promised.
The reality is that the aggressor in this fight was Hillary Clinton and that she was manufacturing a controversy. The propaganda issue is bogus. These kinds of meetings are always used by all sides to make their points. That did not stop Nixon or Sadat from meeting with a bitter enemy. And, this is the same Hillary Clinton who has ridiculed the Bush administration for having a foreign policy that consists of not talking to bad people. So why go after Obama for saying he would be willing to talk with “bad people” early in his administration?
Part of the answer may lie in the opportunistic politics that has characterized both the Clintons. Curiously, in lambasting Obama for being willing to meet allegedly unsavory leaders, Hillary did not mention the Holocaust denier who presides in Iran, the suspected mastermind of a state murder in Lebanon who rules in Syria, or the builder of nuclear weapons who leads North Korea. She only mentioned Fidel Castro, who is ailing and out of power, and Hugo Chavez, who has won more elections than she has. Did anybody say Florida?
A bigger part of the answer may be Hillary Clinton’s desire to convey that she represents total continuity regarding the basic hegemonic assumptions and design of U.S. foreign policy. This is consistent with Clinton’s vote in support of the Iraq war and her desire to maintain a significant troop presence in that country well into the future. It is par for the course of having Madeline Albright, who famously (and arrogantly) referred to the United States as “the indispensable nation,” as a top foreign policy advisor. And it is compatible with the fact that it was Bill Clinton, her husband and mentor, who first officially adopted the regime change policy toward Iraq so dear to the neoconservatives and so convenient for President Bush, the same Bill Clinton who signed two of the most draconian U.S. laws against Cuba.
A Hillary Clinton presidency would surely not be as dreadful in the arena of foreign policy as that of George W. Bush. But then it could scarcely be as disastrous as the policy of the worst president in U.S. history. At best, Clinton’s foreign policy would represent what statisticians call “regression toward the mean,” a return to the “average” state of U.S. foreign policy. Any hope — and it is not a very large hope — for even a modest transformation in the basic logic of U.S. policy abroad lies elsewhere.
Obama may not be a savior but he may bring some positive changes, especially if he is serious about talking with rather than talking down to adversaries. Edwards is hard to gauge, but if he practices abroad what he preaches at home concerning poverty, that will be progress. Hillary, as she proved once more during and after the debate, is hopeless.
