John Edwards' Foreign Policy

Commenter Otto asked with regard to my post on the difference between the Clinton and Obama groups of national security advisors, "And how does MY-annointed Edwards fit into this discussion? Can we meaningfully characterise his foreign policy staff on the same criteria?"

This is tougher. The bulk of national security people have viewed this as a Clinton-Obama race and affiliated either with one of those campaigns or else with no campaign and a lot of the people who Edwards has signed on don't have very large public profiles. Two people in Edwards' circle whose work I am familiar with are Michael Signer and Derek Chollet whose views I've disagreed with in the past and who -- combined with Edwards' very hawkish positioning in 2004 -- made me kind of skeptical of Edwards' foreign policy at the get-go. Now, either they've changed their minds since then, or else I misunderstood what they were saying previously, or else Edwards is listening to someone else, because he's eventually rolled out a foreign policy agenda that seems great. On every point where he's said something different from the competition -- mostly notably on the question of a "war on terror" -- he's differentiated himself in a good way.

Now, I think it's pretty clear that these issues are not at the heart of what John Edwards is all about, either emotionally or intellectually. He likes to talk about how he's spent his whole life fighting powerful corporations, his service on the Intelligence Committee wasn't especially distinguished, etc. This is what keeps drawing me back to Obama who has a more impressive team and more engagement with these issues, but he's never sealed the deal and as Edwards keeps saying things I agree with, it feels dumb to object at a certain point.

Comments

"This is what keeps drawing me back to Obama who has a more impressive team and more engagement with these issues..."

This is actually why I support Obama. I am actually a policy guy, who advocates voting for the person with whom you most agree. Some people find it strange then, that I am not voting for Edwards (even though I agree with him domestically), but because foreign policy is the most important prism through which I view the presdidency, I support Obama.

Sorry Petey. I think Edwards will make a great VP.

Posted by d | December 14, 2007 3:55 PM

I think some people are drawing the wrong conclusions from Edwards's lack of interest in foreign policy relative to Obama. If your priority is a change in direction on the foreign policy front, the fact that a candidate is driven mostly by domestic concerns is a very good thing.

Our country has not historically suffered as a result of being too disengaged with foreign policy matters. In fact, I'd say the past sixty years serve as an indictment of American "engagement" in this sense.

I like the fact that John Edwards is unlikely to look overseas to make his mark. That is a highly desirable trait in a president. It is exactly what we need coming off of the last eight years.

I'm not talking about "isolationism," whatever that means. But a preoccupation with foreign affairs has much more potential to do harm than good.

Posted by Jason C. | December 14, 2007 4:28 PM

Doesn't Edwards movement all over the place on foreign policy suggest that he doesn't have deep commitments here or that whatever he says is based on short term political calculations and more or less disconnected from these commitments?

I'd be happy to see Edwards get elected President, but I'm not really excited about him vis-a-vis foreign policy. He might be quite good or might be quite bad. Probably he'd be somewhere in the middle. It is hard to say. So when it comes to foreign policy it seems a bit like electing generic Dem.

Posted by ikl | December 14, 2007 4:31 PM

don't you get upset whenever republicans articulate policies that come into conflict with china? isn't edwards one of the most prominent advocates for protectionism towards china?

Posted by jamie | December 14, 2007 4:34 PM

The US is going to play a huge role in world affairs no matter who the next President is. Having a President fundimentally uninterested in foreign policy does not mean that the US is going to be less engaged. This strikes me as a pretty naive way of how Presidential administrations work and the role of exogenous events in shaping the administration's agenda. For example, Bush seemed fundimentlally uninterested in foreign affairs in 2000 and we all know how that turned out . . .

Posted by ikl | December 14, 2007 4:37 PM

Kind of hard for me to comment, because I'm such a crazy nutcase fringe radical that I'd kind of hope we could someday move beyond foreign policy as led by (a) Bush Jr. neo-Khan Reaganite radicals; (b) Democratic establishment advisers who were for the Iraq invasion & occupation; and (c) Democratic establishment advisers who were against the Iraq invasion and occupation.

There were quite a lot of U.S. foreign policies under the Clinton presidency I opposed, and for what I view as quite sensible, principled, and 'pragmatic' reasons (i.e., practical in the meaningful sense as opposed to Beltway 'pragmatism').

However, going any further than (c) in U.S. presidential electoral politics labels you as some sort of loony radical (i.e., Kucinich), so I'm really not surprised that neither Edwards nor anyone that close to his campaign are proposing anything, er, "transformative" in foreign policy matters.

U.S. foreign policy is the most screamingly, jealously preserved bastion of the hawks and liberal hawks, so, I'm not going to naively anticipate some broad challenge to that any time soon.

On the plus side, Latin America has generally broken free of both 1980's right wing repression and 1990's supply-side economic lockdown, and they don't seem particularly interested in returning to any more of that idiotic U.S. establishment domination, so maybe a bit of healthy perspective on foreign policy might trickle back in to the U.S., should anyone in office be willing to pay attention.

Posted by El Cid | December 14, 2007 4:39 PM

Edwards is the only candidate out there who's actually uttered the word (and in a disparaging fashion no less)- "neocons". It made me take a second look at the guy because of it. Christ, even Joe Biden's woken up a bit on the Middle East, although he's still parroting the neocon line on Russia. As far as Hillary goes - yes, she's kept her intentions vague...but, can anyone really trust her to do pursue at bare minimum a Baker/Hamiltonesque foreign policy?

Posted by Trevor | December 14, 2007 4:55 PM

But a preoccupation with foreign affairs has much more potential to do harm than good.

Not sure I follow that one at all. It seems like you are saying the reason our foreign policy has been so fucked up is because GWB is too preoccupied with foreign policy, rather than becaue he has bad ideas and poor judgment and has listened to the wrong people.

Posted by blah | December 14, 2007 5:04 PM

First: what d said.

Second:

I'm not talking about "isolationism," whatever that means. But a preoccupation with foreign affairs has much more potential to do harm than good

The problem is that a President without strongly held foreign policy views is more likely to go with conventional wisdom and bipartisan initiatives. In '93, that wasn't so bad because George H. W. Bush was conservative, but not batshit insane. Now that the conventional wisdom has swung so far to the right, though, the Washington consensus has grown more dangerous, and we need a President who's committed to a new foreign policy direction rather than one who has seemed uninterested in foreign policy and may bend to the prevailing winds so he (or she) can concentrate on a domestic agenda.

Posted by Dave | December 14, 2007 5:27 PM

The problem is that a President without strongly held foreign policy views is more likely to go with conventional wisdom and bipartisan initiatives.

Seems to me that it would be the exact opposite.

Posted by blah | December 14, 2007 5:29 PM

Oops! Misread that - you are correct.

Posted by blah | December 14, 2007 5:30 PM

MY, you bring up a good point at the end that I hope you will elaborate on: the importance of foreign policy vs. the importance of domestic policy. I believe you have written previously that since the president has more latitude on foreign policy matters than domestic, foreign policy matters should have more weight. But how much more? If you had to vote, say, at a brokered convention based on pure policy (without political consideration) and one candidate was good on foreign policy but so-so on domestic while the other was great on domestic and so-so on foreign, how would you decide? I know my example is the definition of vague, but perhaps you could shed a little light--using specifics--on the domestic vs. foreign policy front.

I have a friend who is very personally and politically engaged with the Israeli-Palestinian situation who doesn't consider domestic policy--at all--in his political deliberations. His argument, beyond his own personal reasons, is that our foreign policy actions impact the course of history and the state of the world we live in than domestic policy does. Most of my friends, however, don't focus as much on foreign affairs (they also know a lot less about them.)

So I'm hoping you can address this more directly. I would really love to see you look at the latest poll numbers on what issues voters think are most important and, rather than commenting on what it means politically in the presidential race, comment on what you yourself think of those numbers and whether perhaps Americans would be better off prioritizing things differently than they actually do, and why.

Posted by blah | December 14, 2007 5:36 PM

Edwards' top national security advisor is retired Admiral David Oliver who has extensive experience at the top levels of national security and who worked with Edwards when he co-authored a report for the CFR on relations with Russia in 2006. Oliver used to be close with Powell on military doctrine but he broke with the Bush admin out of frustration with its ridigity, its refusal to use intelligence properly and its unwillingness to use diplomacy -- and he went to Edwards as the one most likely to restore those instruments of US soft power.

Posted by Gus | December 14, 2007 5:36 PM

What movement has Edwards really had on foreign policy? The only big change is that he first favored the Iraq War, and after the evidence showed that it was a monumental mistake, he said he was wrong to do so. He's always been for increased foreign aid and more diplomacy. In 2004, one of his good lines was something like America does better by offering an open hand, not a fist.

Posted by Clark | December 14, 2007 5:40 PM

Someone else is using my name?!? WTF! I only wrote the long comment, not the ones at 5:04, 5:29 and 5:30. Can't even think of your own generic comment name, can you? For crying out loud I only started using this name a few days back.

Posted by blah2 | December 14, 2007 5:40 PM

I am the long-term user of "blah" on MY. You stole my nic.

Posted by blah | December 14, 2007 5:44 PM

Edwards voted for Pee-wee's big Iraq adventure which turned into the biggest foreign policy disaster since Vietnam as a member of the Senate Intelligence Committee - he's either stupid, lazy or an opportunist, his credibility regarding foreign policy is zero.

Posted by novakant | December 14, 2007 5:52 PM

"If your priority is a change in direction on the foreign policy front, the fact that a candidate is driven mostly by domestic concerns is a very good thing."

That was my thought.

Posted by Petey | December 14, 2007 6:11 PM

"I am the long-term user of "blah" on MY."

Blah, Blah, Blah.

Or even better, Bob Loblaw.

Posted by Petey | December 14, 2007 6:13 PM

Um, having a President underinterested in foreign policy means decisions will get made by high level appointees who they delegate them to or by government bureaucracies running more or less on autopilot. How this adds up to a change in foreign policy is pretty unclear. Unless you are sure that the appointees are going to seek a new direction pretty aggressively and this is pretty hard to project before the new administration takes office . . .

Posted by ikl | December 14, 2007 7:15 PM

What some people miss is that Edwards foreign policy is integrated with his domestic policy.

Whether its energy issues or poverty or moral responsibility or even Iraq.

Posted by Josh Medeiros | December 14, 2007 7:34 PM

Since all the foreign policy experts can really do is tinker round the edges of what the entities that really run the country -- the corporations -- doesn't it make for sense to go for the guy who wants to bring those same corporations under some kind of control?

Posted by lambert strether | December 14, 2007 8:38 PM

Yeah, the Iraq war was just "tinkering around the edges".

Posted by ikl | December 14, 2007 9:20 PM

You know Petey, we count on you to jump on MY early and strong on any Edwards thread. Otherwise things tend to get uneven (e.g. blah v. blah).

I will now assume my role of reconciling you to Steve Sailer (he did a friend of mine a great favor a few years ago, so I have soft spot for the guy). Sailer once made the point that people in the "foreign policy establishment" have the same mentality as rich college alumni who bribe hot prospects to play football at State U. They like feeling like big shots when the world would be a better place if they'd just STFU.

The difference is, car dealers and real estate developers breaking NCAA recruiting rules has a lot less pernicious effect on humanity than DLC Democrats pushing corporate trade deals or insisting we look "tough" on any foreign policy issue.

Hillary's foreign policy advisors are Reagan Republicans (i.e. semi-neocons) in their views, Obama's advisors seem to be the Eisenhower Republicans (not nuts but still working for Wall Street). I get the sense Edwards is the only one who rejects the big shot mentality. I think he'd genuinely be an FDR ("Good Neighbor") or JFK ("Alliance For Progress") style President. Which for a Democrat, should be a good thing.

Posted by beowulf | December 15, 2007 2:46 AM

I think beowulf's right. Edwards is likely to be an FDR ("WWII") or JFK ("Vietnam") style President. He will likely go the way the wind blows, or sucks depending on the locale.

Posted by Robert Powell | December 15, 2007 7:01 AM

Asked and answered! Thanks.

Posted by otto | December 15, 2007 10:17 AM

"I will now assume my role of reconciling you to Steve Sailer (he did a friend of mine a great favor a few years ago, so I have soft spot for the guy)"

I have trouble with Sailer's loud and proud racism. I have no opinion of what he's like in his personal dealings, and am perfectly willing to believe he's a prince among men in that sphere.

Posted by Petey | December 15, 2007 2:22 PM