Last Point About Hillary

Another old post that I never published. Interesting considering what we know now - that Clinton was very close to refusing the position.

I don't want to spend too much time on this, but Thomas Friedman did make an interesting point about whether or not to choose Hillary. Basically he said the Secretary of State is only effective when foreign leaders believe they are talking to the President through the Secretary of State. In this position, seemingly more so than other cabinet positions, those dealing with the secretary of state need to know that Obama trusts Hillary and that Hillary supports Obama's policy positions.

I am not writing Hillary off - she has proven time and again that she can mold her personality to fit whatever role she finds herself. This is what has made her effective as First Lady, Senator, and presidential candidate (she might not have won, but I still think she ran a good campaign).

This gets to the Team of Rivals issue. It seems that a lot of people have read Doris Kearns Goodwin's book and think Obama should mimic Lincoln and bring rivals into his cabinet. Now there will always be contrarians who don't really get the point*. It isn't whether a president can bring in differing view points while maintaining a perfectly functioning cabinet. Instead the issue is whether the president (Obama) will be better able to control rivals (ie people within his party who might try to thwart his plans due to ego or real differences) by keeping them in his cabinet and whether he can also use their talent effectively in their positions. In Lincoln's case, I would argue that he did effectively deal with the personalities in his cabinet - Chase especially - and also relied heavily on the talented Seward and Stanton.

The biggest lesson though is where to put which rivals. Stanton and Seward were loyal and headed the two most important positions during the Civil War: the State Department and War Department, respectively. The point I am trying to make is that if you want to bring Hillary in to try to keep her close and manage her, it might be better to try that with another post. Only if Obama thinks they can truly work together should be give her State Department.


*Note: The author of this article misrepresents the Emancipation Proclamation as being a fait accompli when Lincoln brought it to his cabinet. Whether to issue it was already decided by Lincoln. But Seward was able to convince him to wait until after a Union victory before issuing it so that it was issued from a position of strength. Lincoln heeded the advice and issued it following the victory at Antietam.

Cuba

An old post I never published:

So I have been spending some time learning more about Castro and his Cuba lately, thanks to a NY Times Sunday Magazine article and American Experience: Fidel Castro. Basically, I wanted to know more so that I could actually judge him fairly - and understand what our policy towards Cuba is and what it should be.

Now that I have done that, I see that Castro's Cuba is a really good place to go to debate US anti-communist foreign policy. First, let's start with an analysis of Cuba under Castro. There are two components to his government. One, is the political component in which he was the sole authority and dissent was punished. Clearly, there is nothing to like about those policies.

Second is the economic component. At its most simple, I think we can look at Cuba's social services - where education and health for the poorest has increased - and economic production. There appears to be much to admire about Cuba's focus on training doctors and sending those doctors throughout the world. But their overall economy is and has been a mess. It seems clear, and economic theory predicts this, that there is a trade-off between economic growth and economic policy that is redistributionist / socialist.

What does this all mean for foreign policy? If the US truly hopes to create a world that allows basic freedoms and rights to all people, what policies should it tolerate? For governing, that decision seems a little more clear. Governments that deny participation by its people, dictatorships for example, should not be tolerated.

What about economics? Here, I don't think the answer is as clear. If socialism can be achieved through democracy, than I see no reason why it should be challenged or fought.

Basically, what I am suggesting is a foreign policy that opposes all dictatorships but supports all participatory governments. Sounds simple enough, right? But this hasn't been our policy. Instead, we have chosen to support capitalist systems over socialist / communist systems no matter what. We supported horribly repressive capitalist dictatorships in Chile, Iran (under the Shah), and Vietnam (during the war) just to name a few.