Arguably, the US President is uniquely positioned to employ American soft power in the service of norm entrepreneurship.
At this point, the US could move a great distance on some FP issues merely by joining into a number of normative arrangements that already exist -- including CEDAW, ICC, the land mine ban treaty, and perhaps the CTBT. Most US commitments would require Senate affirmation, where the hard work would need to be accomplished. The number of Democratic Senators next January will matter a great deal.
Some accomplishments could be achieved by an executive -- by stopping active efforts against the ICC, for example.
The next US President could also expend some political capital on a climate change deal and likely achieve at least paper success. The tangible changes needed in that area would occur well beyond 2012.
Peter,
"The question is: Does that really matter, and how much?
"I think that the answer is that it does (after some reflection, I think my scholarship naturally leads me to this answer), and I’m hoping to have a post in the near future spelling out my reason why."
I look forward to your post. I hope it will focus specifically on how Obama and Clinton (or whichever one emerges victorious tomorrow) and McCain might make a difference (based upon what we can reasonably expect from their records and statements), rather than on how some idealized fantasy President might make a difference.
I mean, sure, we can all ask ourselves "What would Jesus do?" but last time I checked he isn't in the running at this point.
David Johnson
Chandler, Arizona
David,
To preview my thinking just a bit, what I've been turning around in my mind is this "its just words" criticism of Obama by Clinton (which i just saw her reiterate on the Daily Show). Stanley Fish previews a similar attack by McCain in his NYT blog. They both think that "experience" and their set of detailed plans make them better candidates in the primary and general respectively.
But, my work looks at The Power of Language in US Foreign Policy. It leads me to ask--is Obama's language, his power to inspire and open up rhetorical space for a policy shift, perhaps more powerful, more likely to give us something (not everything, but something) really different? We've all seen a great many plans for reform that have the facts on their side lose in a political space designed to 'trap' or 'coerce' (appropriate citations, you know who you are) policy in the opposite direction.
Anyway, that's what I'm thinking, and we'll see if I can get it up as a more coherent post.
Peter,
I pretty much agree with your theoretical point. But, not having followed the criticisms of Clinton or McCain, my skepticism of Obama isn't that "it's just words" but rather that the words he's using are so empty of substance. "Change." "Hope." Who isn't for any of that? When I ask, "Where's the beef?" I'm not implying that Obama is inexperienced nor a policy lightweight but rather noting that his emotive rhetoric is absent of substance. What does he mean when he says he wants to "renegotiate NAFTA"? (I mean, Mike Huckabee would like to "renegotiate NAFTA" too, but I hardly think he has the same thing in mind as Obama!) What would Obama talk about with the Iranians and Syrians? Just exactly how will he get the United States out of Iraq?
The proof, I think, is in the pudding. I don't doubt for a moment that an ideal progressive, internationalist, multilateralist discursive candidate could transformation the language of international affairs--and therefore the world. But for Barack Obama, it seems much less clear to me precisely because he works so strenuously to keep his langugage vacuous and absent of substance. This has helped to make him the candidate of both conservative Southern Baptists and liberal lapsed-Catholics I know but should he be elected at least one of these types of folks is going to disappointed with the substance of a President Obama's policies.
My problem, at this point, is that I have no idea which one it will be--and suspect it might very well be both.
David Johnson
Chandler, Arizona
--
You can have the best idea, but if you can't sell it...
Who has been able to lead by inspiration? Since the start of the 20th century it's been two Roosevelts, a Kennedy and a Reagan. From Bully Pulpit to the Teflon President, the story has remained constant: harness the people to your purpose and you can do great things.
In my little world of Texas, Obama's leadership has engaged 200,000 volunteers to be an active part of his campaign. Who did he surround himself with to do such a thing? He obviously knows how to select and employ talent. That's real leadership in my book.
Now, let's see where it goes.
"Now, let's see where it goes."
"It won't be better but I'll settle for different" - The Waitresses, "Redland"
--
In addition to tackling security issues, the next President (esp if it's a Democrat) will/must do a review of US development assistance (broadly meant), perhaps expanding those of Bush's initiatives which seem to have had some success (e.g., President's Emergency Fund for AIDS Relief; global fund on TB, AIDS, and malaria) and rethinking those whose premises and operation are more questionable (e.g. perhaps Millennium Challenge Corp.). Balance of civilian vs military involvement in humanitarian ops also should be addressed.
Ditto Rodger's point, esp. on ICC.
3 Visitors Online
Commenting by HaloScan.com
