Beyond "Knowledge"

Fred Kaplan has a good column trying to move beyond John McCain's many gaffes and get at the point that despite his war hero background, his ideas about foreign policy are terrible. I do, however, think it's a bit unfortunate that the piece has been titled "How Much Does John McCain Really Know About Foreign Policy?"

In general, I think it's a mistake to construe the foreign policy issue as one primarily centered on attributes like knowledge, experience, competence, credentials, etc. That kind of thing implies that everyone more-or-less agrees on what our foreign policy should be like, but different figures have different qualifications to run the operation. That's a nice idea, but it's not true. The problem with McCain isn't with any particular gaps in his knowledge base (though those seem to be there) it's that his militaristic vision of America's role in the world is likely to launch a new round of great power conflict in a way that makes it impossible to address terrorism, nuclear proliferation, climate change, etc. in a reasonable manner.

Comments

His ideas are terrible and militaristic, but they're not grounded in a particularly intellectual or competent person.

I mean, just look at how the campaigns have been run, and yet this meme exists (propogated by the media) that McCain is the "safe, competent" choice.

Combined with his militaristic ideas and the way he's run his campaign, he's anything but the safe choice.

(more on that here: http://strategy08.wordpress.com/2008/07/25/obama-mccain-and-the-competence-meme/)

Posted by Dan | July 25, 2008 11:13 AM

Sorry, was an error with my URL, should have been this:

http://strategy08.wordpress.com/2008/07/25/obama-mccain-and-the-competence-meme

Posted by Dan | July 25, 2008 11:16 AM

Some people think in terms of positions, and some in terms of attributes, so I think pointing out McCain has both bad positions and weak attributes is a good idea.

Posted by DTM | July 25, 2008 11:25 AM

As the daughter of a diplomat, who listened to foreign policy discussions every night at the dinner table, every morning in the car on the way to school, etc. etc., I just have never understood how having served in the military quite briefly (in comparison to the rest of his life), and in a minor role foot soldier role, then being a prisoner of war for five years makes somebody competent in foreign policy? There is a big difference between diplomacy and military strategy. The latter is sometimes used to support the former, but not vice versa. They are not interchangeable.

Effective foreign policy requires a cool head, good intellect, the ability to listen, and to understand other cultures. Being a good soldier requires physical and emotional/moral courage.

I'm voting for a president, not a general.Which candidate has more of the former qualities, and which has more of the latter.

Posted by cnnr | July 25, 2008 11:34 AM

A point missed here is how much does McCain know about ANYTHING? He seems abstruse about a great many areas of policy and knowledge. Concentrating on one area may make sense so as not to confuse the electorate or appear scattershot in your criticism. But really, isn't it "pick a subject" with him and you've successfully whacked your mole?

Posted by steve duncan | July 25, 2008 11:34 AM

There is more to worry about than lack of knowledge, but knowledge is important, and the people making and influencing foreign policy decisions in this country don't have much.

That goes for pundits as well, of course. Yglesias doesn't know much and it worries him: it should worry him more.

Posted by gcochran | July 25, 2008 11:34 AM

As the daughter of a diplomat, who listened to foreign policy discussions every night at the dinner table, every morning in the car on the way to school, etc. etc., I just have never understood how having served in the military quite briefly (in comparison to the rest of his life), and in a minor role foot soldier role, then being a prisoner of war for five years makes somebody competent in foreign policy? There is a big difference between diplomacy and military strategy. The latter is sometimes used to support the former, but not vice versa. They are not interchangeable.

Effective foreign policy requires a cool head, good intellect, the ability to listen, and to understand other cultures. Being a good soldier requires physical and emotional/moral courage.

I'm voting for a president, not a general.Which candidate has more of the former qualities, and which has more of the latter.

Posted by cnnr | July 25, 2008 11:37 AM

Matt,

I really like your blog, which I read religiously. However I don't think that you know many Republicans or right leaning independants - which accounts for about 50% of the USA. You can point out every single gaffe and misrepresentation McCain makes about foreign policy - his supposed strong suit. These people don't care, they think Republicans are better at foreign relations and with the military, because...they just are. You can point out all the problems with what McCain's positions actually are, and how detrimental they will be. These people don't care because...they'll say McCain is more experienced. You can point out that McCain's "experience" does not really mean much, and he has not actually done much in the Senate. These people don't care, because McCain was in the military and he is a Republican. We can debate, on this site and other left leaning sites, what victory in Iraq actually means. These people don't care, because they know what victory means.

Likewise, regarding Obama's "citizens of the world" comment. You can point out that Regan and Bush, Sr. both said the same thing. You can also point out that Obama said something like, "I am a PROUD AMERICAN and citizen of the world." These people don't care, because a Democrat said it and it sounds "hippy-dippy, foreign, and socialist."

Now, you might say, these people won't vote for Obama anyway. I disagree, we're trying to get that last 10% to vote for Obama. Most of these people are not really interested in politics, they don't follow politics or the news. And when they do, it comes in soundbites. I am worried because it John McCain seems to get this and Barack Obama doesn't. A lot of commenters have stated that John McCain's "attacks" are a sign of desperation or that he has nothing else to go on. I disagree (although I agree McCain's campaign has nothing to go on). John McCain is attacking Obama because attack ads work - and they ALWAYS have. I just hope Obama understands this.

Posted by Fighting Words | July 25, 2008 11:38 AM

"That kind of thing implies that everyone more-or-less agrees on what our foreign policy should be like, but different figures have different qualifications to run the operation."

Not really. It just implies that knowledge and competence are also important. Maybe that's false, but that is far from obvious, and you don't really give an argument.

Posted by NCS | July 25, 2008 11:39 AM

In the case of McCain, I do think it is important to focus on knowledge as well as policy. McCain really isn't terribly bright, and I suspect he has large gaps in his knowledge of the world that have yet to be exposed. Since foreign policy is supposed to be his thing, it would be good to see the media work harder to expose them.

People across the political spectrum want to turn the page on the Bush administration, and given the typical portrayals of Bush in mainstream popular humor my guess is that people attribute a lot of Bush's failures to a sheer lack if smarts. If McCain can be made to seem similarly lacking in the cognitive department, that is another way of tying him to Bush.

Posted by Dan Kervick | July 25, 2008 11:59 AM

Fighting Words:

Yours is the counsel of despair. You maintain that the soundbites Obama uses, even if they are the exact same as those used by the Republicans, will be turned against him. You argue that there is no method of persuasion that will get 50% of the country to be regard Obama as more reliable on foreign policy than McCain.

My question to you then is what soundbites do you possibly think could be effective? I don't think there are clear answers here, but people like MY and myself are tired of the running scared solution. The only way to change the people's perception on the Republicans/Democrats debate is to keep hitting people over the head with these facts and refusing to pretend that Obama doesn't have a much sounder approach to foreign policy.

Honestly, it's a much smaller percentage than 50% that simply can't be persuaded. I think the rock bottom minimum for the Republicans is 30% and in a single election cycle I don't think you're going to get fewer than 40% of them really thinking the Dem has a better approach to foreign policy. And even then I think your wildest best hope in the general is a 55/45 split. But over the course of time, you can improve the situation by consistently calling out the Republicans on their crap, by refusing to play games with the media and by governing effectively. The Republicans are really good at a certain kind of politics, but their stubborn refusal to admit when they wrong (even to themselves) can also be used against them and I think this is our opportunity to discredit the Republicans for a good solid generation, the way the Dems have struggled on foreign policy for almost 40 years.

Posted by mpowell | July 25, 2008 12:07 PM

Fighting Words: you make an excellent point: Obama's biggest failure as a politician is his difficulty mastering the soundbite. He didn't get this in the primary, and he's not getting it against McCain. Us liberals think McCain's an ass because he's relying on the soundbite thing, but it's probably why he's staying high in polling.

The people who say Obama's an empty suit say that because they don't remember anything he says. The reason they don't remember is because he gives long thoughtful, substantive answers to everything, rather than soundbites. He's gotta stop assuming he's speaking to an intellectual audience, and dumb himself down. THe irony is, once he dumbs himself down, he'll seem more substantive.

Posted by cnnr | July 25, 2008 12:11 PM

There is both knowledge and attitude. Without the former policy is just stumbling around in the dark. Attitude matters immensely, but more so if it is backed by knowledge. Someone weak on knowledge, but who can appoint good people to cover his gaps can make up for it. But that implies he recognizes his gaps, and is able to also recognize those who posses true knowledge.

Posted by bigTom | July 25, 2008 12:16 PM

The only "soundbites" McCain is successfully getting out there are the ones that make him sound senile and insane, like "bomb-bomb Iran" or "Iraq-Pakistan border."

The idea that he has some kind of "soundbite advantage", especially over one of the greatest political communicators of the modern age, is ludicrous.

Posted by Chet | July 25, 2008 12:38 PM

Actually, let me, not Fighting Words, offer the "counsel of despair." I disagree with FW that the problem is that Obama doesn't choose the right soundbite, but I do fear that points like those of Matt and others will fall on deaf ears. The problem is that anything he says can be used against him. He could have said exactly the opposite.

It's not, after all, as if McCain were saying pointed, resonant soundbites rather than sounding like Kaplan's ignorant fool. It's not, too, after all, as if Gore said the things attributed to him. Even those debate quotes from Kerry sound awfully good, he was declared the winner that night, and he got a blip in the polls after each debate. But then the machine kicks in.

To add to the quotes from JFK, Reagan, and others, there's always another pinko, Thomas Jefferson, who in light of "a decent respect for the opinions of mankind" wrote a certain declaration that "let facts be submitted to a candid world." One side is the respect and hope of leadership and alliances within the world. But the other is the belief in facts. As long as there's utter disregard for the reality-based community, we should respect and admire Obama's way with words, not assume he's worse at it, while doing our best to fight the real problems: public ignorance, the right-wing machine, and the complacent media that abets and delights in both.

Posted by John Haber | July 25, 2008 12:53 PM

I don't think there is a better example of McCain's inability to grasp basic foreign policy concepts than his proposal to kick Russia out of the G-8. Two minutes of introspection reveals that this would a) be impossible; b) greatly antagonize Russia; and c) make our allies question our leadership and judgment. It's idiotic foreign policy like this that has greatly diminished America's standing in the world.

Posted by Mark S. | July 25, 2008 3:42 PM

McCain is, as cnnr says, a military man from a military family...the the core. His world view is black and white, right and wrong as so many raised in the military see every thing put in front of them.

I believe he believes what he's saying...his speech today all about victory while drifting back and forth between Iraq and old Vietnam stories. His view is right and all other views are wrong...period.

The surge is a prime example. McCain is focused on the black and white of a tactic that, when combined with other turns of events, made the best of a bad situation. Obama sees the tactic(s) as a small part of the overall policy tragedy which involves seeing all the gray area between the black and the white. One sees the micro, one sees the macro.

I can only hope that there are more people in this country that understand the vast amount of gray there is in this country, let alone the world and to elect a black and white guy would only further propel this great country into what's quickly becoming the oblivion of third world status.

It's up to those who are tired of our recent policy makers to get off the couch and work to ensure we change the larger course of the nation which will by extension, ease tensions around the world.

Obama can't do this...but the people can if they care enough to work for it.

Posted by G Davis | July 25, 2008 10:05 PM

Well, Matt, you can argue it both ways. While McCain's "militaristic vision" is obviously wrong, he holds it because he doesn't have any real knowledge to contradict it, either.

He's not a "war hero". He's not even an expert in military matters. He's a fucking pilot who finished last in military school, blew his plane off the deck of a carrier, got shot down, collaborated with the enemy, then dumped that career for politics.

There's nothing in that history to suggest that McCain has either knowledge or a "vision". He's just another political thug trying to gain power.

But some posters here have identified a real problem with Obama's inability to convince a large portion of the electorate that what I've said above is true. At minimum, that portion of the electorate comprises 30% of the electorate. And that's now after five years of disaster - before it was closer to 40-50%.

Which is why Obama is only leading by 4-7%. He SHOULD be leading by 20% over an idiot like McCain, if there were any rationality left in the US electorate.

And when Bush attacks Iran, that electorate is going to get "militaristic" themselves and vote for the "war hero" McCain. Their "militarism" will be temporary - but if it lasts just long enough for ten percent more people to vote for McCain, does that matter?

Posted by Richard Steven Hack | July 25, 2008 11:49 PM

Back during the 2000 campaign, semi-maverick conservative Andrew Ferguson wrote a prescient piece for the "Weekly Standard" pointing out (with details) that the trouble with McCain was that he was even more mentally lazy and fuzzy-minded than Bush.

Unfortunately, that hasn't changed -- and that's the cause of McCain's problems. The problem is that he hasn't learned anything from his long "experience", because he isn't interested in learning anything from it -- it's so much more fun to just emote.

Posted by Bruce Moomaw | July 26, 2008 12:26 AM