Eight For 08

Here’s a new spin on candidates actually proposing foreign policy objectives and strategies: it harms our foreign policy objectives and strategies. Peter Baker from washingtonpost.com’s The Trail explains:

In the last week, Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.) declared that he would send U.S. troops into Pakistan to get al-Qaeda leaders even without President Pervez Musharraf’s permission, Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-N.Y.) said she would leave the option of nuclear strikes on the table in the struggle with terrorists and Rep. Tom Tancredo (R-Colo.) said he would bomb Islam’s two holiest sites to retaliate for a terrorist nuclear attack.

None of them actually has a key to the Oval Office, so their pronouncements on the trail add up to little more than electioneering rhetoric. But Bush was still left to pick up the diplomatic pieces. The State Department had to reassure the Muslim world that it considered Tancredo’s suggestion to blow up Mecca and Medina “absolutely outrageous and reprehensible.” And amid howls of protest from the Pakistanis, Bush was quizzed during a Camp David meeting with Afghan President Hamid Karzai yesterday about whether he would go into Pakistan unilaterally as well. (He ducked the question.)

This is tricky territory. Yesterday, I praised Barack Obama for providing concrete foreign policy objectives and fundamental reforms for achieving them, despite the fact that I disagree with important components. Apparently, I’m not alone:

Protesters in Karachi, the largest city in Pakistan, took to the streets to burn the U.S. flag after Obama’s comments without regard to the fact that at this point at least he does not actually speak for the United States.

Peter Baker brings up some good points regarding the low signal to noise ratio that bold policy statements from candidates can create for present policy makers. Perhaps, I should think twice before praising such boldness in the face of such instabilities in global politics? But before we go questioning the free speech merits of this affair, a few things should be addressed.

First off, the reactions to the statements by Obama and other candidates are being painted as gross misunderstandings of who the players are that determine U.S. foreign policy (bold above). In fact, candidate Obama does contribute to U.S. foreign policy and is an elected leader. If a leader in such a position has the opportunity to speak up on matters of policy in which he or she dissagrees with the executive branch, then that’s part of the political process and is healthy for democracy regardless of the negative political externalities. Not that those externalities can’t outweight the positive contribution to the democratic process at home, but I don’t think they do in the case of Obama.

Additionally, conflating statements by prominent Americans with U.S. policy isn’t about disregard for some type of policy hierarchy, it’s human nature, and we’re all well aware of the problems with assigning the statements and actions of individuals to large ethnic, national, or religious groups. I’m not saying it makes it ok, but let’s consider for a second how we could possibly police both domestic statements from citizens with a soapbox and reactions to them abroad and just how slippery a slope that is.  I’d also propose that it probably wasn’t just Obama’s statements that led to the flag-burning episode.

Despite all that, I’ll wander onto the slippery slope and say that there are degrees of responsibility that can realistically be assigned to certain statements. Given that, Tancredo’s statements surely exceed Obama’s:

“If it is up to me, we are going to explain that an attack on this homeland of that nature would be followed by an attack on the holy sites in Mecca and Medina,” the GOP presidential candidate said. “That is the only thing I can think of that might deter somebody from doing what they would otherwise do. If I am wrong fine, tell me, and I would be happy to do something else. But you had better find a deterrent or you will find an attack. There is no other way around it. There have to be negative consequences for the actions they take. That’s the most negative I can think of.”

I’m wondering what the logic is that leads Mr. Tancredo to pursue “the most negative consequences he can think of?” Whatever it is, surely it’s not a foundation for strong poicy making. What I find fascinating about Tancredo’s statment though is the dualism between “this homeland” and “the holy sites in Mecca and Medina” that the statement relies on. I suppose this is a clue to the logic of Tancredo - as scary as it is unsurprising.