Friday, late morning, or maybe it is already noon, and Hillary Clinton is going on stage. The crowd cheers, but not too much. The atmosphere is business-like. These people – I interviewed some of them when the event was over – don’t easily get excited when a political celebrity comes to town. They’ve seen them all. They know them all. A tough crowd for a candidate.
Clinton focuses on the economy. First she emphasizes the differences between Republican and Democratic Presidents, some of which she happens to know, wink wink (her husband, President Clinton, inherited a recession; her former boss, President Obama, inherited a financial crisis). Then she moves on to talk, delicately, about the differences between her and her two opponents – Bernie Sanders and the third tenor whom barely anyone names. Clinton calls them ‘the Senator and the Governor.’ She does not harshly criticize them, just says that while she wants to build on “what we achieved” with healthcare, Sanders wants to “start over” (and in case anyone forgot: healthcare reform was HillaryCare before it was ObamaCare).
When she talks about equal pay for women – an important goal, if somewhat tricky to achieve – she gets the loudest cheers and clapping. When she talks about foreign policy, there is silence. I guess that’s why she doesn’t talk about foreign policy, not more than four of five sentences.
What does Clinton say about foreign policy and defense issues? She says: “I feel ready and prepared on the first day.” This isn’t about policy at all – it is about her being the experienced one. It is about her telling the voters: you do not really care about the nuances of foreign issues, and are not truly interested in them, so let’s talk about the issues about which you do care – your paycheck – and leave the rest of the world to me. I have the resume to deal with it (to which Sanders’ enthusiasts respond: Clinton does not have experience, she has a track record of bad choices) .
No one seems bothered by this world-free presentation; but as a card-carrying member of the rest-of-the-world, I wonder if I should be bothered by that. When an Israeli travels to Iowa in mid-winter it is because of the significance of tomorrow’s vote for the rest-of-the-world. When a non-American feels compelled to understand and report on the nuances of the American campaign, it is because of the implications this campaign is going to have on the rest-of-the-world.
Clinton-supporting Iowans don’t seem to care much about the rest-of-the-world. Those attending Sanders’ rallies care even less (I am still waiting for him to talk about Iran and Israel with more detail). In the last couple of days I interviewed dozens of such attendees. “The economy is my number one and two and three issue,” one of them told me; “why are you here?” another one asked me with surprising bluntness, “Iowans are not voting on the Middle East.” I must admit, though, that Rhys Blakely got a much better quote with which to open his article: “Peter Schmoll, a taciturn corn farmer from Iowa, adjusted his baseball cap as he pondered what he thought made a good president. ‘They should be good for corn farming’, he said. Anything else? ‘Not really’.”
So Saturday evening, shortly after Shabbat, I bet on a corrective experience at a Marco Rubio rally in Urbandale and was not disappointed. The issue is not that the Democrats are going for this foreign policy while the Republicans are going for that foreign policy. It is that Democratic candidates don’t want to talk about foreign policy – seeming disinterested in having a conversation about Asia and the Middle East, terrorism and radicalism – while Republican candidates want to talk about all these issues. In the case of Rubio yesterday, he wanted to talk mostly about these issues.
Rubio articulated in his speech the reason for which he focuses on foreign policy and defense policy. It is an ideological choice. In Rubio’s view, as he says, being commander in chief is the main role of the President of the US. In his view, America does not need a federal government and a president to take care of its schools – there are states for that. America needs a President to be its commander in chief.
So Rubio begins by saying: We elected a President who wants America to be more like the rest of the world – Obama – and now we need a President who understands that America is exceptional. Obama signed a deal with Iran (the crowd boos the deal). Obama betrays “our allies like Israel.” Rubio talks a little bit about immigration and about healthcare but quickly returns to talking about the world. The “lunatic” leader of North Korea, the recent moves by China, Vladimir Putin who poisons people, Iran – another boo – and ISIS. On ISIS, Rubio gives a little educational speech. What is the ideology behind it, what are its ambitions, how it operates.
Rubio does it well, putting his well-recognized communication abilities to work. He is a much better speaker than Hillary Clinton. Nicer, funnier, lighter, smoother. Maybe somewhat like the other Clinton. But it’s more than the style of presentation that these two do not share. I was intrigued by their completely different choice of subjects – a difference that reflects a different reading of what Americans need and want, a difference that reflects a different ideology and a different set of priorities, a difference that will surely be felt when the next President gets into the White House (be it her, him, or one of the many others).
More news and opinions than at a Shabbat dinner, right in your inbox.