There's been a fair amount of talk about Barack Obama's foreign policy -- see, for instance, The Obama Doctrine -- but rather less about his foreign policy politics. But Obama's political style may actually be more significant than his policy vision. For a long time, hawks were as aggressive in promoting their foreign policy as they were in designing it. Battle abroad meant political battle at home, and they were prepared for that. Conversely, doves were no more comfortable forcefully advocating for their positions than they were advocating force. They'd generally protest the premise of the conversation -- how dare you call us un-American? -- then try and change the subject to health care. The American people, who don't spend a lot of time talking things over with foreign policy experts, sensibly went with their gut: Trust the guy who seems confident on the subject. This is what gave rise to Bill Clinton's famous postmortem on the 2002 elections: "When people are insecure, they'd rather have somebody who is strong and wrong than someone who's weak and right." A few months before, his wife had put that dictum into action by voting for the Iraq War Resolution. But as Mike Tomasky points out, Obama is offering a rare break from that tradition: He's a relative dove who is, if anything, more aggressive and confident in his opinions than the hawks. And he's bashing their heads in every time they attack him. Tomasky uses Bush's loathsome comments to the Israeli Knesset as his example, but the exact same pattern manifested in the argument over negotiating with dictators. Obama gets hits as weak on national security, and rather than issue a pro forma response and retreat to firmer ground, he keeps hitting back, keeps the issue alive, keeps releasing statements and ads and mailers. This is, it should be said, Obama's style more generally -- he did the same thing on the gas tax. And it's an interesting gamble that asks a long overdue question: Can you be strong and right?
