At a fundraiser in April, Barack Obama was asked, long before he’d locked down the nomination, about the kind of qualities he’s looking for in a running mate. “I would like somebody who knows about a bunch of stuff that I’m not as expert on,” he said. “I think a lot of people assume that might be some sort of military thing to make me look more Commander-in-Chief-like. Ironically, this is an area — foreign policy is the area where I am probably most confident that I know more and understand the world better than … Senator McCain.”
It was a reminder that when it comes to his perceived liability, Obama sees a strength. In fact, he’s not lacking in confidence on the issue — asked this week whether he has any “doubts” about the power of his foreign-policy vision, Obama said, simply, “Never.”
Nevertheless, Obama is no doubt aware of the conventional wisdom, and what he has to do to bolster his credibility. Obama could, in theory, work to change the subject and emphasize the issues where he already has public support. To his credit (and my relief), Obama’s doing the opposite.
What is striking is how Obama’s campaign differs from past Democratic campaigns. In earlier years, Democratic candidates couldn’t wait to move off of foreign policy and onto domestic issues, aware that their party more or less owned the domestic debate, while Republicans generally held the high ground on national security. The more time they could spend focusing the contest on domestic issues, the better their chances of winning.
That was true certainly for John F. Kerry against President Bush four years ago, and it’s clear that the polls currently show that national security issues are McCain’s one key area of strength against Obama. Obama’s advisers believe the economy will dominate the fall campaign, but the candidate shows no indication that he will try to avoid engagement with McCain over foreign policy.
Actually, he’s doing the opposite, working rather aggressively to present a foreign policy vision that’s fundamentally at odds with the Republican worldview. As Greg Sargent noted, “Obama has, with the exception of FISA, largely held to a tenet that has defined his campaign since the beginning: That through persuasion he can win arguments with the GOP on national security; that this turf needn’t be ceded to the GOP.”
It’s obviously too soon to know whether Obama taking the offensive on national security and foreign policy will pay off — polls still show voters preferring McCain on these issues by a comfortable margin — but it’s hard not to appreciate how things are falling into place for Obama, at least at this stage in the process.
Bush has endorsed Obama’s call for diplomacy with Iran; McCain has endorsed Obama’s policy with Afghanistan; and Maliki has endorsed Obama’s withdrawal timeline — all in the midst of an overseas trip that automatically bolsters Obama’s standing on the world stage. The WaPo’s Dan Balz noted, “[T]he curious turn of events made for an unexpected opening act for the Democrat’s week-long tour of seven countries, demonstrating anew the combination of agility and good fortune that has marked his campaign…. [A]s political theater, the events of the past few days have played unfailingly in the Democrat’s favor.”
Is it possible for Obama to overtake McCain as the candidate voters trust more on foreign policy and national security? It seems, facts be damned, unlikely. But E. J. Dionne Jr. makes a compelling argument today that Obama doesn’t necessarily need to overcome the gap, he just needs to narrow it.
To win the presidency, Barack Obama needs only to battle John McCain to a tie on foreign policy and national security. That means Obama has no need for a great triumph during his trip this week to the Middle East and Europe. His goal is to look safe, sound and competent, and that’s how he’s playing things.
More and more, 2008 is taking on the contours of 1980. Then, the country, desperate for change after the battering it felt it took during Jimmy Carter’s term, was eager to vote for a new direction and a charismatic leader.
But Ronald Reagan was inexperienced in foreign policy. Some of his previous statements made swing voters worry that he might blow up the world — or so Carter’s strategists tried to get voters to think. The election stayed close until the final days.
The key moment came in the campaign’s single one-on-one debate. Carter may have prevailed on debating points, but Reagan was the real winner because he came off as cool, calm and likable, and that was sufficient. In the week that followed, the bottom fell out on Carter.
Obama is in an analogous situation. The country is at least as fed up with Bush as it was with Carter. Polls suggest that if Bush were on the ballot this year, Obama would sweep the country. The race is closer against McCain, who does not inspire the same rage and hatred that Bush does. So Republicans hope that voters might yet find their way to voting their doubts about Obama.
But another parallel with 1980, also helpful to Obama, is emerging: Just as Carter effectively strengthened Reagan’s arguments by adjusting to the country’s more hawkish mood as the election approached — he boosted defense spending, had the United States boycott the Moscow Olympics and took a much harder line on the Soviet Union — so are Republicans now adjusting to the reaction against Bush’s foreign policy and to new realities.
And the result, of course, is that Obama’s foreign policy vision, while derided by the right, has actually become the sensible, pragmatic approach that policy makers in both parties can get behind.
Instead of Obama’s vision being that of a liberal outsider with limited experience, Obama’s vision is quickly becoming, as Dionne put it, “safe and reasonable.”
No wonder Obama feels confident going on the offensive.