It’s difficult to decide what spells worse for Obama’s foreign policy legacy. An opinion article in the Wall Street Journal where William McGurn, George W. Bush’s speech writer, favorably compares Jimmy Carter to Barack Obama? Or perhaps this article in Politico, which makes it look like Obama could learn a thing or two from the current French President when it comes to flexing muscle and foreign interventions.
A French socialist
It’s hard to overstate how insulting these comparisons must be for any American President. Carter is often regarded as one of the least effective Presidents. His dealing with the Iranian hostage crisis and boycott of the 1980 Moscow Olympics still fill many American State Department and Pentagon officials with shame. This, among other factors, led to Ronald Reagan’s election and the popularity of his tough talk on the Russians. As for comparison with Francois Hollande, it is not only a French president but a socialist one, mind you, who clearly is willing to take on more responsibility, as evidenced by France’s unilateral actions in Syria and interventions in Mali, its former colony. Ever since World War II, France has been synonymous in the US with poor military leadership. (Ever heard that joke about French rifles for sale? “Dropped twice, never used.”)
Carter and Reagan
I am not here to debate the effectiveness of Obama’s foreign policy or the wisdom of his ‘leading from behind’ on the global stage. It is much too early, of course, but one does wonder what the relationship with Putin would have looked like under a McCain Administration. Obama’s soft approach is not a priori bad and it was as much a reaction to George W.’s overreach around the globe as Ronald Reagan’s cowboy foreign policy was to Carter’s mumbling and fumbling.
Trump’s foreign policy
No. I wonder how much of this election cycle will be dominated by foreign affairs. Thus far, most of the focus has been on the candidates themselves, their alleged business acumen, and even how they use email. Not a whole lot of time has been spent on strategic foreign policy goals, the current turmoil in the world, or what the place of the USA in the world is. So far, foreign policy discussions have centered around Trump’s idea of getting along with Putin (he thinks), kicking some Chinese ass, keeping Mexicans out, and just taking care of business in general, as if he were CEO of the world.
American isolationism
This excellent article in The Economist touches upon American isolationism and alleges that America is no longer willing to lead the world. I doubt that. For sure, there has always been a strongly isolationist strand in US politics and an old axiom says that foreign affairs can only cost you votes. But Americans are also deeply uncomfortable about not being number one in the world and having to cede an inch of ground to Russia, China, or Islamic militants. Furthermore, the world is a mess and there is a lot of justified criticism on Obama’s handling of foreign policy crises over the past seven years. So, I think that in due course there will certainly be a place for international relations and diplomacy to rise to prominence. That would likely benefit Mrs. Clinton most.
A 21st century Ronald Reagan
It seems to me that the US is in a similar position as it was in the seventies. Insecure at home with a bad economy (don’t let those ‘full employment’ figures fool you) and losing strength abroad, with a dithering commander-and-diplomat-in-chief. I wonder if the Jimmy Carter of the 21st century will pave the way for a new Ronald Reagan.
Jan van Ewijk's personal website 