John F. Kennedy was beloved by Americans despite making very costly foreign policy mistakes. Jimmy Carter was beloved by the world but couldn’t win reelection, despite running a foreign policy that was wildly popular throughout the world. Bill Clinton inherited a world in need of vision, but failed to offer one. What will Barack Obama do?
Obama as Kennedy
Obama and Kennedy both came into the presidency young and inexperienced. Kennedy presided over the Bay of Pigs fiasco; he greenlit the operation but refused the air support, dooming an operation that already didn’t have much chance of success. Although he successfully managed the Cuban Missile Crisis that resulted, it was still the closest the U.S. has ever come to annihilation. Finally, he laid the foundation for the disastrous Vietnam War. Despite this, JFK is the only president to never fall below 50% approval during his term in office.
Obama as Carter
The world loves Barack Obama, and the world loved Jimmy Carter. Carter returned the Panama canal, earning him a place in the hearts of Latin everywhere. Carter mediated the peace between Egypt and Israel that has continued to the present. Carter also secured the release of the Iranian hostages (although only after Reagan had been elected). Despite these accomplishments, Carter only won electoral votes from six states when he ran for reelection.
Obama as Clinton
Clinton and Obama both inherited a US in need of vision. Both Clinton (after the successful conclusion of the cold war) and Obama (after the mass rejection of the “War on Terror”) took office when the U.S. didn’t have much of a strategy. Clinton’s tenure was characterized by attempting to put out fires while downsizing foreign policy as part of the “peace dividend.” Bosnia was victimized by ethnic cleansing, although thanks to Clinton’s policies the situation eventually calmed. Clinton oversaw the Good Friday peace process in Northern Ireland that was largely successful. On the other hand, Clinton’s failures in Somalia and in the aftermath of the embassy bombings emboldened and strengthened al-Qaeda. Unfortunately for the U.S., Clinton never gave the world the vision it needed, and the world order wasn’t redefined until September of 2001.
So, will Obama be a Kennedy, a Carter, or a Clinton?
The answer, I think, is a bit of them all. Just as Khrushchev misjudged the young JFK and brought the world to the brink of war, someone will try Barack Obama. If Obama were to set off on an injustice-ending presidency like that of Jimmy Carter, his speaking gifts and magnetism would probably protect him from the domestic backlash that Carter suffered. Obama seems to have a firm understanding of principles, and we can only hope that he can do better than Clinton at bring an inspiring vision and strategy to the world order. What do you think?
{ 5 comments… read them below or add one }
On Clinton’s involvement in Bosnia…
This excerpt, taken from Noam Chomsky’s “Hegemony or Survival,” argues that the ethnic cleansing in Bosnia was a reaction to NATO bombing. This is obviously at odds with the commonly espoused belief that NATO bombing was in response to ongoing ethnic violence.
“On March 27, three days after the bombing of Serbia began, NATO commander Wesley Clark informed the press that the vicious Serbian reaction was ‘entirely predictable.’ He added that it had been ‘fully anticipated’ and was ‘not in any way’ a concern of the political leadership.”
I enjoy your blog, by the way. Keep up the good work.
You are right. In terms of foreign policy, he will probably be a combination of all three.
However, at this point, his presidency is being defined by the stimulus. None of the other three presidents inherited such a desperate domestic economic situation.
@Anonymous- I’m always wary of Chomsky, but that is a fascinating quote. I’m glad you enjoy the blog!
@Mark- I think you’re right about Obama, much the way 9/11 turned Bush from being opposed to world police and wanting to focus on latin america, this could change Obama’s focus from restoring America’s image abroad to shoring up things at home. We’ll see though, four years is a long time.
Interesting observation about JFK being the only president to not drop below 50% approval. I guess by inference, we can only hope that Obama will take his turn in popular Siberia.
I think you are missing the proximate cause of Jimmy’s Carter’s fall from popular grace. It was not his lack of speaking skills or charisma. Like Obama, that is exactly what got him elected.
Carter came into office with 72% approval. By summer he was below 50%. What happened in between was Bert Lance. The Carter presidency never really recovered. It was not Carter himself that damaged his presidency. It was the people around him like Bert Lance - an easy and convenient target for a press corp that was reluctant to take on the President and sensitive to charges of being in the tank for Jimmy. Lance was a a friend and part of Carter’s “Georgia mafia”. When Carter put loyalty ahead of political expediency, the press and public took their pound of flesh.
There is a cautionary tale for Obama here, as he is escorted by his Chicago Machine Praetorian Political Guard into the White House. The guy to watch is Axelrod. Secretive, Roveian, operating under executive privilege cover, and plenty of skeletons and big money corporate connections from his ASK Public Strategies political consulting firm. He was able to throw a smokescreen around ASK during the campaign, with a leave-of-absence fiction and saying he was not going to participate in the administration anyway. I guess he changed his mind. Tick tock.
If he’s a combo of all three then he may have an identity crisis. Doer of all master of none, is it?
It is odd how Kennedy escapes criticism for Vietnam though.