×
This TNR article advising Obama about how to handle the politics of Afghanistan tries too hard to capitalize on old stereotypes about the different parties and in the process becomes a bit of a muddle. You get passages like this:
Additionally, Democratic presidents like Obama face a particular handicap when making major foreign policy moves: For decades, the public has distrusted the Democrats on issues related to national security.Followed by this:
While it is true that the Democrats' reputation on foreign policy has experienced a recent uptick--in Pew's August survey, Democrats enjoyed a 13-point lead on foreign policy and a nine-point advantage on Afghanistan--Obama shouldn't allow that fact to lull him into thinking his party has conquered the American public's skepticism.And sure, they have a good point about the fact that it takes a long time to establish credibility on an issue. But then they say that Bill Clinton can make missteps on a Democratic issue like health care and still get re-elected because Democrats are strong on domestic issues (what about Somalia? Gays in the military?) and that George W. Bush can recover from a massive failure in Iraq because Republicans are strong on foreign policy (Bush also turned a record budget-surplus into a then-record deficit). It's all way too simplistic. But my favorite contradiction is still coming. First this:
No matter what choice Obama makes, he should not be deluded into thinking that his rhetorical gifts can move public opinion on this issue. According to research by Professor George Edwards of Texas A&M University, recent presidents, no matter how golden-tongued, have had virtually no power to change public opinion on foreign policy.Then this:
It is crucial that he make the most of this one-time opportunity to reassure people about his own ability to manage U.S. foreign policy, and lay the groundwork for continued long-term improvements in the public's perception of Democrats on defense-related issues. To do this, Obama should follow the same format that President Bush used to announce his "surge" in Iraq: an address to the nation from the White House, without the back-and-forth of a press conference. His speech should focus on one theme and one theme only--U.S. national security.This works, I suppose, because the authors make a clever distinction between "changing public opinion on an issue" and "framing an issue so that public opinion about it changes." Too clever by half, really. Their point is simple: Whatever Obama chooses, he should make sure to argue that he is protecting the country, which is something of a given. A more important point is to make sure that whatever course Obama chooses actually does enhance our national security.
-- Tim Fernholz
