10/12/00 10:05 a.m.
Humble Pie
A blur on foreign policy.

Frank J. Gaffney Jr., president of the Center for Security Policy, formerly held senior positions in the Reagan Defense Department.

f the hugely popular leitmotif of last week's debate between the vice-presidential candidates was "with all due respect," that of the second meeting of their running-mates appears to have been humility. Al Gore was so humble it was hard to recognize him as the same (non-earth-toned) suit who appeared, in full alpha-male mode, huffing and puffing through the first round in Boston.

It was Texas governor George W. Bush, however, who first explicitly adopted the mantle of humility in the context of the night's Topic A: foreign policy. In response to a question from moderator Jim Lehrer about how Mr. Bush would like people around the world to perceive the United States, the governor declared:

I don't think they ought to look at us with envy. It really depends upon how [the] Nation conducts itself in foreign policy. If we're an arrogant nation, they'll...resent us. If we're a humble nation, but strong, they'll welcome us. And our nation stands...alone right now in the world in terms of power. And that's why we've got to be humble and yet project strength in a way that promotes freedom. So I don't...think they ought to look at us in any way other than what we are. We're a freedom-loving nation. And if we're an arrogant nation, they'll view us that way, but if we're [a] humble nation, they'll respect us.

The new kinder, gentler Al Gore immediately responded by saying that he "agreed with that," thereby establishing a degree of consensus that dominated most of the remainder of what was, arguably, the most sustained discussion of foreign policy and national defense matters in a presidential debate since 1976, when the incumbent, Gerald Ford, surprised Jimmy Carter and the rest of the world by declaring that the Soviet Union did not control Poland.

Whutsupwidat?

The truth is, though, that it is unlikely either George W. Bush or Al Gore would actually pursue a "humble" foreign policy, if elected. For one thing, nations who resent our power and seek to diminish it — notably Vladimir Putin's Russia and Communist China — are likely to construe such restraint with suspicion and as evidence of an absence of American resolve. Such perceptions generally breed trouble.

If, like his father on his best days in the run-up to Operation Desert Storm, W. shows that the United States is ready, willing, and able to lead the world, the nation would once again be widely respected and, where appropriate, feared. For his part, a President Gore would be inclined simultaneously to subordinate American power to the United Nations (or other multilateral organizations) while pursuing a sanctimonious nanny-state agenda in such bodies on environmental, social, and military issues that — far from engendering respect for this country around the world — will likely breed contempt for the U.S., even as it erodes our sovereignty.

It is regrettable that Gov. Bush chose to blur this and other distinctions between his and Al Gore's approaches to foreign and defense policy. It seems that W. has decided his best protection against the charge that he is inadequately prepared to handle these portfolios is basically to endorse what the Clinton-Gore administration has done.

Hence, we were treated to the governor commending President Clinton for his handling of the Middle East, Yugoslavia, the IMF bail-out of Mexico and Rwanda and — at least implicitly — the Clinton-Gore stewardship of this portfolio more generally. By so doing, he has given both Clinton and Gore an undeserved pass in an area where they are not only politically vulnerable but have left a legacy that is likely to afflict their successors and the nation for years to come.

What is more, this tactic set up the bizarre by-play which saw the Veep distancing himself — at least implicitly — from the administration in which he has served as a driving force on security policy for the past eight years. This "triangulation" strategy was most in evidence with respect to such issues as "standing by" Israel, taking a "hard line" on Serbia, substantially increasing military spending, the administration's failure to intervene earlier in Rwanda and getting rid of Saddam Hussein.

The truth of the matter, of course, is that there are fundamental differences between the Bush and Gore worldviews. They cannot — and should not — be reduced to platitudinous straw men about "nation-building" versus "engagement." They involve, for example, a dramatic disagreement over whether the United States should be defended at the earliest possible moment against ballistic-missile attack, even if a defunct, 28-year-old treaty with the Soviet Union says we are not allowed to do so. George Bush says "Yes," while Al Gore has consistently said "No." W. appears to embrace the Reagan philosophy of "peace through strength"; the Veep is a committed arms controller who believes in peace through paper.

It can only be hoped that the candidates will use the last of their three debates and the remaining days of this election to sharpen, with all due respect and humility, their actual differences about the role the United States must play in the world — and how the nation will play it under their respective administrations.