Just after the election, I made the following observation:

[A]n Obama administration is likely to pursue a foreign policy based on sound strategic principles and coherent tactics.  Realism should trump ideology, and principles should trump interests. Call it pragmatic idealism, if you must apply a label. . . .

This approach is not unprecedented in American history.  It represents a vision not unlike that of the first Bush Administration (which helps explain why a number of G.H.W. Bush’s senior foreign policy advisors either endorsed Obama or remained on the sidelines).  It also reflects the creativity and flexibility of the postwar Truman Administration, which, under the leadership of men like George Marshall and Dean Acheson, had to build new foreign policy and national security institutions virtually from scratch.

It therefore is possible that, to use Acheson’s famous phrase, we are once again “present at the creation” of a new paradigm, one that focuses on what the United States can do for the world, not what the world can do for the United States.  This may take more time than originally envisioned, in large part because the financial crisis will draw away important resources from the task.  But in the end, Obama has the opportunity to remake the way the United States pursues its interests in the world.

Boy I hate when I’m right:

Many of the Republicans emerging as potential members of the Obama administration have professional and ideological ties to Brent Scowcroft, a former national-security adviser turned public critic of the Bush White House.

Mr. Scowcroft spoke by phone with President-elect Barack Obama last week, the latest in a months-long series of conversations between the two men about defense and foreign-policy issues, according to people familiar with the discussions.

The relationship between the president-elect and the Republican heavyweight suggests that Mr. Scowcroft’s views, which place a premium on an Israeli-Palestinian peace accord, might hold sway in the Obama White House.

Related posts

• Why Hillary Still Might Say No
• Uganda or Digital Television?
• Transition Watch: Anger in the Ranks
• Thought of the Day
• The Transition

Assume for a moment that John McCain is a transitional figure, and that he will serve only one term if he actually does manage to get elected.  If that is true, where does the Republican Party go after he leaves office?

Sarah Palin represents a dead end for the Republicans.  A Palin candidacy in 2012 will be to the Republicans what George McGovern was to the Democrats:  a transitional, highly partisan individual who appeals to the base without significantly expanding it the way Reagan did.

To make an even more forced analogy, Palin is the Republicans’ Neil Kinnock, the Labor Party leader who preceded Tony Blair.  Kinnock was an old-school traditional Labor ideologue who helped solidify the base but could never translate that into electoral success.  It may be that Republicans have to go through a similar period where they enjoy the false comfort of an ideologue in charge, one who gets trounced regularly, before moving back to a centrist, more inclusive place in American politics.

To further strain the analogy to the breaking point, the fundamental question is who will be the Republicans’ Bill Clinton/Tony Blair/Bruce Cameron — the thoughtful, charismatic, and young centrist who pulls his/her party back into the mainstream of the political discourse.

Another way to look at it is that John McCain is to Ronald Reagan as John Major was to Margaret Thatcher:  the last exhausted gasp of a once-vibrant worldview.

There really are three types of political leaders in the United States:  base mobilizers (McGovern, Mondale, Bush II, Palin), centrists (Truman, Eisenhower, Kennedy, Johnson, Nixon, Ford, Carter, Bush I, Clinton, Dole, Gore, Kerry, McCain), and game-changers (FDR, Goldwater, Reagan, and perhaps Obama).

The problem for Republicans is that they will see Palin as a game-changer when in fact she is only a base-mobilizer. And with the (disastrous) exception of Dubya, most base-mobilizers don’t win elections.

Discuss.

Related posts

• Obama, Messaging, and Dean Wormer
• While We Were Putting Lipstick on That Pig. . .
• Thought of the Night
• The Manchurian President
• State Department Watch: Fed up with Bush?

In a joint appearance with Zbigniew Brzezinski at CISIS yesterday, Bush 41 National Security Advisor (and Bush 43 gadfly) Brent Scowcroft warned against a preemptive strike on Iran: Read the rest of this entry »

Related posts

• While We Were Putting Lipstick on That Pig. . .
• Was McCain Tortured? Ask Dick Cheney
• Twenty Questions for the Debate Tonight
• Thought of the Day
• The Manchurian President

George H.W. Bush.  Yes, he “strongly support[s]” McCain, which does not exactly sound like bipartisanship.  But in a joint appearance today, he avoided several opportunities to bash Obama.  He deferred to McCain on the issue of Iraq and said the following when asked about Obama’s trip to Europe:

When asked if he was bothered that Obama plans to hold such large events overseas, Bush smiled. “A little jealous is all,” he said, adding that he thought the Democratic candidate would receive a “warm welcome” in Germany.

That is a model for how former Presidents should handle themselves in a general election.  You can’t expect them to stay out of it, but after so many months of listening to Bill stick his foot in his mouth, it’s nice to see Bush show some reserve and frankly, a great deal of class.  There’s a reason Obama ciets him so often as a role model on foreign policy.

For new readers:  The Arthur Vandenberg Prize, (the “Vandy“) is for those who embrace bipartisanship in foreign policy, even when doing so might not be popular with or politically convenient for their own side. Named for the late Michigan Republican Senator Arthur H. Vandenberg, best known for his support for the Truman Doctrine and Marshall Plan in the face of pressure from the isolationist wing of his own party.

Related posts

• What Obama and McCain Can Learn from Arthur Vandenberg
• More on “The 300″ and Obama’s Experience
• You Have Got to Be Kidding Me
• Will McCain Stick to His Plan?
• Twenty Questions for the Debate Tonight