Will Voters Buy Into Dole's Criticism Of Clinton's Foreign-Policy Record?
As Bob Dole pursues a scorched-earth campaign to chasten President Clinton on domestic issues and White House foibles, Mr. Clinton's foreign policy and world leadership could provide the margin of victory in November.Skip to next paragraph
Subscribe Today to the Monitor
Clinton has successfully removed "the economy" as a compelling issue from the political debate. Aside from providing a modicum of comfort and relief for the majority of working Americans, the relatively robust economy has forced Mr. Dole to resort to a litany of evanescent issues surrounding Clinton's character, judgment, and management of White House political affairs.
In addition to the undertow of innuendo surrounding the persistent Whitewater saga, a new maelstrom was created by the administration's admitted bungling of what should have been routine security procedures and the mishandling of FBI background files. Dole hopes these issues, combined with snickering about the first lady's new-age philosophy and recurring speculation on presidential philandering, will help him win the White House in November.
But now, perhaps recognizing the inherent vacuousness of these arguments, Dole also has taken to criticizing the president on foreign policy. Prompted by his chief foreign policy campaign adviser, Senate Armed Services chairman John McCain, Dole has castigated Clinton for such things as mismanaging relations with Japan, Korea, and China; failing to appreciate the security concerns of Eastern Europe; and relying too heavily on the forces of reform in Russia as a substitute for a more-reliable security bulwark such as NATO expansion. And of course, Dole lambastes Clinton for a hesitant, limp strategy on Bosnia.
Dole avers that Clinton lacks an all-encompassing world-view or grand strategy. He says the administration's priorities are topsy-turvy, with issues such as human rights, trade imbalances, the environment, and global population occupying center stage in lieu of hard-core security issues.
In a recent article in Foreign Policy, Senator McCain writes: "Many of the president's self-proclaimed successes - in Bosnia, Haiti, and North Korea, for instance - amounted to little more than a partial recovery from the damage to our national credibility he had previously inflicted in those areas."
McCain further notes: "[T]wo genuine successes, the North American Free Trade Agreement and the Uruguay Round of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade were achieved precisely because the Clinton administration avoided the conceptual and operational mistakes that have bedeviled most of its policies." On Dole's behalf, McCain makes his boldest assertion: "The Clinton administration has left the United States less secure today than when President George Bush left office. The president's mismanagement of this highest priority is the most persuasive reason for electing a new commander-in-chief this November."
This is strong and unabashedly partisan dictum, writ large for a contentious debate on American foreign policy in an election year. But the question remains as to whether American voters will buy into the Dole portrait - or caricature as it were - of Clinton's foreign-policy performance. Manifest from Dole's foreign-policy gambit is the hope and belief that American voters will embrace his view that the US somehow suffers a less-than-superpower status as a direct result of Clinton's soft leadership in foreign affairs.