Korean Job Discussion Forums

[bucheon bum]

An interesting article in the NY Times:

When It Comes to Foreign Policy, What Counts as Experience?

Some excerpts:

[stevemcgarrett]

Apparently, Obama and Clinton believe that it doesn't much matter, otherwise they wouldn't have the gall to run for the highest office in the land. On second thought, yes they would.

You know, every time Obama talks about foreign policy he sounds like a teenager at Model U.N.

Clinton will probably adopt a deep-throated Kissinger voice when she speaks on foreign policy, her latest pandering effort.

Still waiting for the press to poke fun at his ears, which protrude more than Bush's. Won't hold my breath.

[Gopher]

Short answer: yes, it matters. This is a let's-defend-Obama's ignorance and inexperience in foreign-affairs piece.

The only postwar presidents with significant foreign-policy background and experience include only the following: Eisenhower, Nixon, and H.W. Bush. All three did very well on foreign policy.

In matters pertaining to American foreign relations, JFK was a disaster, as was LBJ. Ford is inconclusive on this, but I will put him in this category because I would not place him in the same league with Eisenhower and Nixon. Carter: more of a disaster than even JFK and LBJ. Reagan: same as Carter. Clinton disdained foreign affairs but soon learned he could not delegate it and focus exclusively on domestic affairs. W. Bush: same league as JFK, LBJ, and Carter. Gore would have been no better and Kerry might have been even worse.

As a foreign-affairs leader, I am concerned about a possible Obama presidency. Far too naive and idealistic -- like Carter. I suspect Clinton would do very well, conversely, given all the talent, including her husband, she would bring into the Oval Office with her -- as would Biden, for that matter. No one else on either side inspires much trust, especially Ron Paul and Giuliani.

[Kuros]

[thepeel]

Obama did really well on the Daily show. He made an excellent arguement that experience ≠ competency. He is right that Cheny, Rumsfield and the rest suck out loud in everything they do.

So, maybe yes. Obama would be idealistic G. But he would not have been so idealistic to think that inside every Iraqi/Afgani is an American waiting to come out.

[Gopher]

[thepeel]

[keane]

Obama is right in principle: experience means you've done something, not that you've necessarily done it well. The record helps us determine this. Not having a record makes this judgment difficult, but protects you from attacks on past decisions. Unless the voters decide the lack of a record is worse than a mediocre or poor record, this is in Obama's favor.

Judgment is more important. But we have the same problem: how do we tell a person's judgment without any track record? The campaign process gives us small, if distorted look at this. We get to see some very fast (relatively) decisions being made and some in-the-moment thinking. But it's not much.

The Afghanistan blow-up a few weeks back is the only real test he's had thus far, and he blew it in my opinion. It created frictions and uncertainty outside our borders. It was a poor choice. (Whether a poor policy or not is another question.) So, he's 0-1 so far.

Perhaps problem solving skills are more important than either. Politics being what it is, you can't prepare for every eventuality not can you usually get things just the way you like them. Compromise is necessary more often than not and making the right compromises comes partly from problem solving, which is first on the list in crisis management, also.

Perhaps we should have them all on a national TV forum to do a bunch of problem solving exercises, logic puzzles corporate-style team building. Whoever wins gets to be president.

I am personally uncomfortable with how Obama handles himself, especially how he did early on. Mostly a gut thing so far. I'm not into election mode at this time. I've done not enough in-depth analysis of the full field to come to a final choice as yet.

[Ya-ta Boy]

Yes, I think it can be over-rated. We're not electing a UN representative.

What we want is a person with administrative experience, but ideally with time spent in a legislative body as well as executive position. The president with the most foreign policy experience was John Quincey Adams, and he turned out to be a lousy president. My point is, it would be nice to have candidates with some foreign policy experience, but it isn't essential. There aren't many jobs for politicians to get much foreign policy experience. I think we have to fall back on locating candidates who have had a reasonable substitute...travel, study, etc. Our present incumbent laced that, with clear consequences. (Not the only factor, however.)

In the end, I think you have to make a judgement about general policy trends (their general political philosophy is similar to yours), character (they seem like they won't steal the White House silverware), and gut instinct (your gut tells you this one seems the most reliable one available to hand immense power to).

[bucheon bum]

[Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee]

[Gopher]

[bucheon bum]

I know that Gopher but since the article didn't even mention Ike (other than referring to someone who served in his administration) I figured they weren't including him.

[Gopher]

Then the author deliberately excludes Eisenhower. After all, as you point out, "fifty years ago" takes us to the middle of Ike's second administration.

Not surprising. The foreign-affairs literature is filled with commentary by people who know little about American history and foreign affairs.

[Kuros]