Advisors and Supporters

One of the things that has impressed me the most about Obama is how he has consistently surrounded himself with people who are experts on their topics.  If I had to identify the specific point in time when I started leaning toward supporting Obama, it would be when Major-General Scott Gration visited one of my foreign policy classes last year.  Gration is a retired U.S. Air Force officer and an advisor to Obama on security and foreign policy.  His visit occurred not long after the infamous Pakistan comments were made by Obama, which I asked Maj Gen Gration about and received a well reasoned reply.  (The gist of it being that Obama never said to attack Pakistan, but that if we clearly knew where Osama bin Laden was, we should not hesitate to take him out.)

The reason the people behind Obama are important on this issue is because he does have, admittedly, less experience than Senator McCain does.  In addition to Maj Gen Gration, several other endorsements are indicative that Obama has the appropriate credentials in the foreign policy field:

• The support of Madeleine Albright, President Clinton’s Secretary of State and an extremely well respected person in the foreign policy arena.
• The recent endorsement by Colin Powell, also an extremely well respected Secretary of State, but for a Republican president.
• His running mate, Joe Biden, chair of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee.

Diplomacy and National Security

The single most discussed issue about Obama’s foreign policy is, of course, his willingness to conduct diplomacy with foreign leaders.  That this has been such a big issue reflects what I find to be a disturbing trend within the American mindset.  The idea that we should only talk to people who are going to do what we want means that either we think the entire world should be like us or that we are better than the rest of the world.  Neither one is a particularly appealing option to me.

The fact is that most of the world is not like America, and much of it doesn’t like America.  When dealing with such countries and their leaders, there is an established approach.  It moves, roughly, from diplomacy through sanctions to military force.  (There are, obviously, many, many more tools that fall along that continuum, but I’ve condensed it for simplicity.)  If Obama believes that U.S. foreign policy during the Bush administration has failed (and I tend to agree with him), it’s unsurprising that he is willing to move back to the beginning of the continuum.  This doesn’t show naïvete, it shows someone who understands and appreciates foreign affairs.

It shows something else as well: a worldview that believes in talking with the Other and forging a consensus.  This doesn’t mean giving in to our enemies, but it does mean being willing to seek a peaceful solution before resorting to violence, whether economic or military.  As I said in my previous post:

What I find so persuasive about Obama’s foreign policy ideas is that he believes in talking to people. Much of our foreign policy of late seems to have been composed of demands and threats of force.

If we think that Obama engaging Iran in diplomacy means letting it have nuclear weapons, or speaking with Venezuela means ceding it control over Latin America, then our opinion on foreign policy is just as naïve as we think Obama’s is.  Diplomacy is at the core of the international system, and any president who is not willing to place it on the table is forgoing a powerful tool.

In the Eyes of the World

Just as persuasive to me as Obama’s diplomacy-focused foreign policy is the international support that he enjoys.  Nearly every country in the world would prefer an Obama presidency over the next four years.  In this BBC News survey, he enjoyed a margin of support of almost 4 to 1.  Note that this isn’t just one particular form of government, this is democracies, dictatorships, and everything in between, including both our allies and our enemies.  The rest of the world may not like America right now, but what this indicates is that it wants to like America and it thinks it can, under Obama.

Oddly, this strong international support for Obama seems to be a negative point for some Conservatives (though they tend to be especially dismayed by his backing in France).  This is another facet of the disturbing American mindset that I mentioned above.  If the international community’s support of Obama is a bad thing, that means there is either something wrong with the international community or something better about America.  Such a view fails to appreciate the diversity of the world and the positive aspects of cultures and governments around the globe.

• The support of the international community is, in the end, irrelevant.  Obama is an American politician and is beholden to the American people.  The choices he makes will reflect that allegiance and no other, especially if he wants to get (re-)elected.
• The best thing that could possibly happen for the United States right now is for our credibility with the rest of the world to increase.  This would help with trade, diplomacy, the war on terror, and numerous other foreign policy agenda items.  Obama’s popularity with the international community is a perfect chance to do exactly that.
• The support for Obama around the world, but especially in Europe, is only partially due to an appreciation of his policies.  To many people it also represents a further advancement in the American community, as an African American becomes president and helps diversify the appearance of the United States to the world.  Europe, especially, may not like America’s current policies, but it does believe in what America represents, and Obama’s candidacy is symbolic of that American dream.

As an Evangelical…

So why does this matter to me as an Evangelical?  The answer is tricky, since we should not equate this nation, and thus its foreign policy, with Christianity.  Still, I’ll hazard a few answers:

• Even if we do not equate America with Christianity, much of the rest of the world does.  A diplomatic, well reasoned, and more internationally inclusive foreign policy will raise America in the eyes of the world, and Christianity along with it.  That sounds self-serving, I suppose, but Christianity has, sadly, become aligned with the worst of American actions in many places.
• While the U.S. is not Christianity, that does not mean that Christian ideals shouldn’t influence our policy ideas.  As Christians we are called on to wage peace over war, life over death, and reconciliation over division.  This doesn’t mean there aren’t times when war is necessary, but it shouldn’t define our agenda.  I believe that Obama’s foreign policy promotes these Christian ideals in powerful ways.
• Because all humans are made in the image of God, our foreign policy must promote human rights, both at home and abroad.  Obama’s consistent opposition of our practices at Guantanamo Bay and elsewhere is a strong statement for this Evangelical belief.  (I am glad that Senator McCain also strongly opposes the Bush administration’s flirtations with torture.)

Two Additional Notes

First, on terrorism and national security.  Many people seem to think that Obama will jeopardize the security of our nation and somehow allow terrorism to grow.  I believe, however, that the most effective thing we can do to decrease terrorism is to improve the world’s view of America.  Terrorism will, of course, continue to exist, and Obama has demonstrated a clear resolve to confront terrorists at home and abroad.

Second, on Senator McCain.  This is by no means a one-sided election on the foreign policy front.  Senator McCain has very strong foreign policy credentials and would undoubtedly promote U.S. interests extremely well.  I support Obama, however, because I believe hehas a far stronger approach for the long run.

Obama’s approach is better because of the combination of excellent advisers, the emphasis on diplomacy, and Obama’s ability to connect with the rest of the world.  Each of these things alone is good, but when combined, they position America to take a unique roll in foreign policy at the beginning of the twenty-first century.

Note: Why comments are disabled on this post.

1. This country will not fall apart. Whatever your political leanings, it is worth remembering that no matter who wins the election, the United States will remain the United States. Our 200 years of history, built upon the brilliant framework laid out in the Constitution, is not in jeopardy because of our next President. Congress will remain, the Supreme Court will continue to issue rulings, the market will continue to function, and people will not fall down dead.

This country has survived Presidents of both parties before, to the surprise of a great many people. In fact, Presidents of both parties have done great things for this nation. If the Democrats win, it does not mean that America will go to hell in a handbasket.

The idea, commonly expressed by both sides of the political divide, that if X or Y candidate wins the election horrible things will happen to the country shows a disturbing lack of faith in America. Such ideas fail to recognize the fact that America is created as a republican democracy in which the people rule and leaders are kept in check through governmental institutions.

2. We will not all lose our morals. Contrary to popular opinion in some circles, Democrats are not immoral or amoral creatures. While they may not hold the same set of values Republicans do, this does not mean that they are any less concerned about God, America, or people.

Abortion is usually brought up as a prime example of why being a Democrat is immoral. While I fully oppose abortion, this issue alone does not define the Democratic Party. Without even examining the many other ways in which Democrats support and show kindness to people—helping AIDS victims, the poor, those without jobs, immigrants, etc.—we can recognize that abortion itself is a nuanced issue. What about the 50 year old couple with grown kids who discover that the wife is pregnant and the baby has Down syndrome? Or the 14 year old mother with only one parent who lives in the city ghetto? Even if we unequivocally oppose abortion, as I do, we must recognize that those who support it are not heartless and cruel people.

Christianity is also linked with morals. If we have a Democratic president it does not mean that he or she will automatically not be a Christian. (It also does not mean they will be a Christian either.) Dismissing someone’s Christianity as illegitimate simply because of their political affiliation, without looking at their testimony and life displays a stunning level of ignorance and pride.

3. The world will not devolve into terrorism and warfare. Democrats care about our national and international security just as much as Republicans do. Without going into whether or not the foreign policy of past Presidents has worked, it is safe to say that even if a Democrat wins, our country will not necessarily be in any worse danger than it is already. Just because a Democratic President would do things differently than a Republican President does not mean he or she would do things incorrectly. There are many ideas in foreign policy that have been successful in the past, and not all of them were monopolized by one party.

While it is possible that doing things such as changing our policies in the Middle East could make us more vulnerable, it could also do the opposite. Any area of the world is extremely complicated and perhaps a change in policy to emphasize democracy and negotiation over force could raise perceptions of America and instead make us safer. Neither route is inherently correct, but both are worth considering.

4. Rhetoric might prove true. While it must be granted that a large part of politics is smooth talking and attempting to promise things that cannot be accomplished, this is not limited to the Democratic party. It is disturbing how fast ideologues will dismiss a speech which seeks the middle ground on an issue, such as Obama’s speech on racism, by calling it just a brilliant piece of rhetoric used to fool people. There are two things to be said on this issue.

First, rhetoric in and of itself is not a negative thing. The ability to eloquently put words together, to navigate an issue in a way that gives play to both sides of an argument, and to draw people in to a belief is not bad. In fact, it can be a sign of greatleadership. Dismissing any speech, on either side of the political divide, that shows such characteristics simply because it is “rhetoric” is illogical and ignorant.

Second, rhetoric is not necessarily a facade put up by a politician. While any politician will “moderate” himself or herself in order to pick up more votes, that does not mean he or she is lying. We must examine politicians’ words critically while at the same time being willing to grant that they may actually believe in what they say. If their rhetoric navigates a middle ground and examines both sides of an issue, perhaps that is a good thing, something that may actually be useful in a President.

Yes, much rhetoric will just be empty words as a President can only do so much. But some may come true and even that which does not still serves to indicate where a candidate’s beliefs lie.

To conclude, we must guard against becoming too polarized. It does no good to demonize the opposition, to insist that all right is on our side. As in my previous post, we must allow ourselves to be questioned by the other side. We must acknowledge that those on the other side may be right in some areas and that they care as passionately about many of the same things as us. If the Democrats win, it will not be the end of the world, even if you do not agree with them.

Our greatest tool in advancing democracy is our own example. That’s why I will end torture, end extraordinary rendition and indefinite detentions; restore habeas corpus; and close the detention facility at Guantanamo Bay.

On Israel-Palestine:

As president, I will commit myself personally, and I will assign high-caliber diplomats, to be engaged with both sides on an ongoing basis — encouraging communication, helping them develop and implement solutions, holding them accountable to their commitments by carefully monitoring and reporting on their implementation. I will also demand greater support for this process from the Arab world.

On Islam:

As president of the United States, I will directly address the people of the Muslim world to make it clear that the United States is not at war with Islam, that our enemy is al-Qaeda and its tactical and ideological affiliates, and that our struggle is shared. In this speech, I will make it clear that the United States rejects torture — without equivocation, and will close Guantanamo. I will make it clear that the United States stands ready to support those who reject violence with closer security cooperation; an agenda of hope — backed by increased foreign assistance — to support justice, development and democracy in the Muslim world; and a new program of outreach to strengthen ties between the American people and people in Muslim countries. I will also make it clear that we will expect greater cooperation from Muslim countries; and that the United States will always stand for basic human rights — including the rights of women — and reject the scourge of anti-Semitism. Simply put, I will say that we are on the side of the aspirations of all peace-loving Muslims, and together we must build a new spirit of partnership to combat terrorists who threaten our common security.

On Iran:

I do not believe that the United States can successfully pressure Iran by refusing to talk to them. If we engage in direct and principled diplomacy, combined with increased sanctions, we will create more opportunities to make progress, gain more support for our efforts in the international community, and we can reduce the risk of an inadvertent military escalation with Iran.

What I find so persuasive about Obama’s foreign policy ideas is that he believes in talking to people. Much of our foreign policy of late seems to have been composed of demands and threats of force.

Another thing to remember is that Obama is the only presidential candidate who is being cheered worldwide. People from London to Nairobi to Jakarta see Obama as someone like them. Just having a president so widely approved of by others will go far to restoring U.S. standing in the world.

Finally, retired Air Force Major General Scott Gration, one of Obama’s foreign policy advisers, spoke to my class last semester. He is a very intelligent man with much experience. If he is a representative example of the quality of advice Obama is getting on foreign policy, I have very few worries.

Edit (3/4/08): I realized later that the title of this post could easily be seen as either naïve or mocking.  In reality it is intended as neither, but as a succinct summary of why Obama’s foreign policy appeals to me.  Just goes to show, I suppose, the power of words to describe things, whether correctly or incorrectly.