"Schizoid Man" wrote in message
Setting aside differences on social and economic issues between
liberals and conservatives, I believe there is a fundamental
difference in their respective styles of governance.
It seems to me that conservatives govern using instinct, belief and
faith in one's own actions. Liberals govern using history, precedent
and usually have a better comprehension of geopolitical affairs.
I smart whenever I hear the "Howard Dean has no foreign policy
experience" argument. My question is: what foreign policy experience
did the ex-governor of Texas have? Disregarding his trips to Canada
to play the Montreal Expos or Toronto Blue Jays, of course.
This begs the question:
http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/stori...00/foreign.pol
icy/
"Just how much do new presidents need to know about international affairs?
"Franklin Roosevelt had experience and led successfully during World War II.
But when he died, the presidency passed to Harry Truman, who was so out of
things Roosevelt had never even told him about the atomic bomb. But Truman
had many foreign policy successes: the end of World War II; the Marshall
Plan to rebuild Western Europe; the policy of containing the Soviet Union;
the Berlin airlift when the Soviets tried to cut the city off; the United
Nations; and so on.
"He couldn't end the Korean War, but in foreign policy, he had many more
pluses than minuses. Dwight Eisenhower had lots of experience. He was the
allied commander in World War II; ended the Korean War; demanded,
successfully that Britain, France and Israel abandon their seizure of the
Suez Canal. Successes.
"John Kennedy grew up on foreign policy. His father was ambassador to
Britain. And JFK wrote a study of British policy between world wars called
"While England Slept."
"As president, he had one big failu the botched Bay of Pigs invasion of
Cuba. But it was followed by a big success: resolving the Cuban missile
crisis by getting Nikita Khrushchev to remove Soviet Missiles from Cuba in
exchange for withdrawing U.S. missiles from Turkey.
"Lyndon Johnson had no direct experience aside from Senate debates. His
administration passed historic domestic legislation: the civil rights and
voting rights acts. But the unresolved war in Vietnam destroyed his
presidency.
Richard Nixon had experience as Eisenhower's vice president and had solid
success: detente with the Soviet Union, opening relations with China after
decades of silence.
"Jimmy Carter had no experience, failed to free American hostages held in
Iran, and said he was surprised when the Soviets invaded Afghanistan.
"Ronald Reagan was completely inexperienced and had great success:
negotiated arms reduction with the Soviets, urged Mikhail Gorbachev to tear
down the Berlin wall, which actually happened during George Bush's
presidency.
Does experience matter? Yes, if you look at Johnson or Carter; no, if you
look at Truman or Reagan.
Foreign policy experience of past presidents
"Just how much do new presidents need to know about international affairs?
"Franklin Roosevelt had experience and led successfully during World War II.
But when he died, the presidency passed to Harry Truman, who was so out of
things Roosevelt had never even told him about the atomic bomb. But Truman
had many foreign policy successes: the end of World War II; the Marshall
Plan to rebuild Western Europe; the policy of containing the Soviet Union;
the Berlin airlift when the Soviets tried to cut the city off; the United
Nations; and so on.
"Former President Harry S Truman
"He couldn't end the Korean War, but in foreign policy, he had many more
pluses than minuses. Dwight Eisenhower had lots of experience. He was the
allied commander in World War II; ended the Korean War; demanded,
successfully that Britain, France and Israel abandon their seizure of the
Suez Canal. Successes.
John Kennedy grew up on foreign policy. His father was ambassador to
Britain. And JFK wrote a study of British policy between world wars called
"While England Slept."
"As president, he had one big failu the botched Bay of Pigs invasion of
Cuba. But it was followed by a big success: resolving the Cuban missile
crisis by getting Nikita Khrushchev to remove Soviet Missiles from Cuba in
exchange for withdrawing U.S. missiles from Turkey.
"Lyndon Johnson had no direct experience aside from Senate debates. His
administration passed historic domestic legislation: the civil rights and
voting rights acts. But the unresolved war in Vietnam destroyed his
presidency.
Richard Nixon had experience as Eisenhower's vice president and had solid
success: detente with the Soviet Union, opening relations with China after
decades of silence.
"Former President Jimmy Carter
"Jimmy Carter had no experience, failed to free American hostages held in
Iran, and said he was surprised when the Soviets invaded Afghanistan.
"Ronald Reagan was completely inexperienced and had great success:
negotiated arms reduction with the Soviets, urged Mikhail Gorbachev to tear
down the Berlin wall, which actually happened during George Bush's
presidency.
"Does experience matter? Yes, if you look at Johnson or Carter; no, if you
look at Truman or Reagan.
I think that in the case of the country's chief executive, hand-on
experience might not be as important as his philosophies or his ability to
delegate much of his foreign policy work to the right people.