Election 2008

Way back when, campaigns started around the winter before Election Day. Now, still over a year prior to the 2008 contest, I’m wondering where to begin discussion; there’s so much to catch up on. For now, let’s stick to some points of interest from this week.

Ivory Tower American Interest launches a series among top public intellectuals on foreign affairs in the 2008 election. Barry Posen starts off the exchange, with comments from heavyweights like Fukuyama, Ferguson, Joffe, and Ikenberry following. This first debate, at least, seems to commence a worthwhile academic dialogue on post-November ’08 foreign policy. A must-read, indeed.

In the Journals John McCain and Hillary Clinton are the latest contributors to the Foreign Affairs Election ’08 segment. CFR.org puts their pieces in context. Clinton and McCain’s essays, like those of the other candidates’, prove adequate in conveying worldviews and issues of interest.

Rs Kathryn Jean Lopez contemplates John McCain’s call to serve at National Review Online. Kate O’Brien thinks he might be a better option than Giuliani. Is the conservative commentariat coming around on McCain?

Ds Bloggers on the left are happy that Chris Dodd announced he would place a hold on the Senate FISA legislation, though as the Washington Post notes, the bill has yet to come to the Senate floor and is still in mark-up. According to Dodd, the bill would grant immunity to telecommunications companies who cooperated with the president’s terrorist surveillance program. Dodd has fared poorly in recent polls and the move is seen as a means of courting, among others, liberal bloggers.

Hello and welcome to Election Forum, 2008, FPA’s new blog on the U.S. Elections!

We are your newly inaugurated bloggers, and with this—our first post—we would like to give you a glimpse into what you can expect in this space in the coming months as the 2008 US Presidential election approaches.

You’ve come to know FPA.org as a one-stop-shop for apt, insightful commentary on a range of international issues. From international migration to war crimes to climate change, the bloggers at fpa.org strive to meet the high standards of informed and non-partisan coverage, bringing you, the reader, both news analysis and comment on issues that matter. Our humble goal is the same, though we will not pretend that the waters for a blog about politics are not, at the onset, a bit murkier…

We do not, however, seek to be a typical political blog. We hope to engage our readers and to participate in the debate, but also provide an informal and informed discussion of the election issues that could determine the outcome of the elections and influence US foreign policy in the future.

What, after all, could be more important to the future of U.S. foreign policy than this very election? The victor next November will define American standing in the world and will inherit many questions of international import: the war in Iraq; climate change; Middle East policy; a resurgent Russia; stalls in international trade negotiations; strategic immigration policies; a weak US dollar. The list goes on. Indeed, many of these topics are discussed elsewhere in the FPA blogosphere. Our ambition is to tie it all together—to outline trends across these issues and more—as the candidates go stump to stump until next November.

We realize that a lot can happen between now and November ’08 – and that’s what makes our task so exciting. We invite and count on your continued interest and feedback. Comments, suggestions, and opinions are always welcome; contributions to the discussion, even better. We will strive to be your forum for informed and objective views on international issues as we approach this election. We hope you will join us often.

-MD and ED

Congress has not been very surefooted of late when it comes to declaring foreign policy by means of Congressional Resolution. The latest example comes in the form of H. Res. 106, passed last week by the House Foreign Affairs Committee, which condemns the Ottoman Empire’s murderous behavior in 1915, when the Armenian population of eastern Anatolia was nearly extinguished.

After several days of repercussions that included Turkey recalling its ambassador and threatening to end bilateral military cooperation with the United States, there were signs today that the Democratic leadership in the House was planning to quietly shelve the resolution so it would not get voted on in the full House.

Now the U.S. is now in the baleful position of having worsened relations with Turkey without even getting points for principled action.

From the standpoint of current U.S. foreign policy, the timing of this whole affair could not have been worse. The Republic of Turkey is a key U.S. ally and partner. Ankara’s cooperation and support are crucial to U.S. military activities in Iraq. Turkey represents a modern country with an Islamic majority that endorses the separation of mosque and state. Add to this the extremely sensitive situation on Turkey’s border with Iraq, Turkey’s restive attitude toward the Kurdish semi-state developing in northern Iraq, and the latest vote today by the Turkish parliament to authorize military incursions across the border to attack suspected PKK enclaves, and one is left with a sinking feeling about what may happen next.

This is not to say that Turkey should be allowed to deny the actions of the Ottoman Turks ninety years ago. But there are better ways – and much better timing – to achieve atonement and reconciliation.

It would also help if congressional resolutions were more consistent, and less politically expedient. Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D- CA) must have thought at first it would be easy to support this measure because her party is not in the White House and would not have to bear the consequences – at least not yet – for worsening US-Turkish relations. She appears now to be reconsidering.

For better or worse, when Democrats or Republicans control both the Executive Branch and Congress, Congress passes very few resolutions that are considered offensive to key allies. When power is divided in Washington, Congressional forays into foreign policy don’t have the same consequences and it becomes easier to stand on “principle.”

Perhaps more important, the temptation is great, during election seasons, to solicit votes by actions that appeal to ethnic voters. California, home to the largest part of America’s Armenian diaspora, will be key to the outcome of the 2008 elections. Cambodia, Rwanda, Sudan – other sites of more recent genocides – are less present in America’s immigrant/ethnic communities, or we might see more resolutions in this election season on their behalf.

As Congress recalculates its interest in this issue, it might also keep in mind its October 2002 Resolution supporting the Iraq war, which seems so hasty in light of subsequent events. When the U.S. moved ahead and invaded Iraq, the Turkish parliament opposed its own government and refused to authorize use of Turkish airspace for the U.S.-led invasion. Maybe Congress would do well to listen occasionally to its counterparts in Ankara.

The stunning news that Al Gore has been awarded the Nobel Peace Prize should make Americans proud – even as it upsets his political detractors and worries Democrats running for the White House. After all, it’s a prestigious recognition that the United States helped to lead the international debate on climate change, something that was easily forgotten in the acrimony over the US stance on the Kyoto Protocol. It’s also a kind of personal vindication – the kind Americans love – where the guy who’s had a tough break picks himself up and comes out a winner. Whatever F. Scott Fitzgerald wrote about no “second acts” in American lives, we relish those exceptions, whether it’s Richard Nixon in ’68, or Albert Gore forty years later. Who remembers “Sore Loserman” now? An Oscar, an Emmy, and now a Nobel!

It perhaps should be no surprise that the guy who was in charge, during the Clinton years, of “government re-invention,” turned out to be pretty good at re-inventing himself. He’s more at home in Silicon Valley than any of the Republican candidates, the putative backers of entrepreneurs. Having been out of politics since 2001, Gore has no votes on Iraq that he must defend. So, with his name recognition, and benefiting from Republican miscues, Gore would be a remarkably strong candidate, blessed even by the Swedish academy. Even our mammoth energy conglomerates would probably like him, since they are all deeply into re-inventing themselves as purveyors of alternative energy products (and the government subsidies they earn).

So why won’t Gore run? Almost certainly, the answer lies once again in the frosty, symbiotic relationship between Gore and the Clintons, dredged up once again in a new book by Sally Bedell. If one believes only half of what has been written over the past ten years or so, Gore took umbrage at Hillary’s initiatives as First Lady, Bill resented Al’s go-it-alone attitude during the 2000 campaign, and Al chaffed at the Clintons’ fund-raising successes on behalf of Hillary’s first Senate race. Hillary’s current, commanding lead among Democratic candidates can only be challenged by one individual – and no one knows this better than Al, Hillary and Bill.

Less than three months remain before the first party caucuses, which gives Nobel Laureate Gore only a couple of weeks in which to reconsider – if he chooses – his demurrals. Those who want – or fear – a Gore candidacy are well aware of this and are engaged in last ditch efforts. An election, like a hanging, concentrates the mind. But if there were any doubt that foreign publics take an interest and try to influence the outcome of our quadrennial confusion, the voters in Oslo put that to rest. They held their own caucus, cast their secret vote, and announced the results of the first primary of the 2008 election. The only question is, will the winner be a candidate?

The Water’s Edge is a monthly column examining the intersection of domestic and foreign policies, with a special focus on the 2008 presidential election. This week, Daniel Widome compares the political hyperbole employed by candidates in both primaries with the realities of foreign policymaking in Washington. Check it out.