Joe Biden hasn’t decided whether to run for president, but he tells almost everyone who asks that he’s giving it serious thought.
Can a 73-year-old vice president who’s been a punch line for comedians really win the Democratic nomination against a juggernaut like Hillary Rodham Clinton?
It’s possible – if he resolves to give Democrats something many of them don’t want: a full-blown debate over their party’s foreign policy.
Biden and Clinton aren’t far apart when it comes to domestic issues, but that’s decidedly not true when it comes to international affairs.
Sign Up and Save
Get six months of free digital access to The Charlotte Observer
Clinton was on the hawkish side of Obama’s team. She supported a big surge of U.S. troops into Afghanistan in 2009; Obama opted for a smaller surge, with a time limit. In 2011, she called for U.S. military intervention in Libya; Obama went along. In 2012, she urged him to send military aid to Syrian rebels; Obama resisted (after Clinton left office, he changed his mind).
Biden was on the opposite end of all three debates. He didn’t think adding U.S. military force in Afghanistan would solve the country’s problems. He didn’t think Libya was central enough to U.S. interests to justify airstrikes. And he was skeptical about the idea of arming Syrian rebels.
The two even disagreed over whether the president should launch the secret 2011 raid in Pakistan that killed al-Qaida leader Osama bin Laden. Clinton “concluded that this was a rare opportunity and believed we should seize it,” then-CIA Director Leon Panetta wrote in his memoir. “Biden argued that we still did not have enough confidence that Bin Laden was in the compound.”
There’s a clear pattern here. Each time, Clinton argued in favor of U.S. intervention. Each time, Biden was a skeptic.
That doesn’t mean Clinton’s a reflexive interventionist ready to invade other countries on a whim; she’s not.
Nor does it mean that Biden would never approve the use of force; he endorsed George W. Bush’s war in Iraq (as did Clinton).
But it does reflect an underlying difference between the two, one that also shows up, more subtly, in their rhetoric.
One of Clinton’s consistent themes as secretary of state was the idea of the United States as “the indispensable nation,” a slogan popularized by her husband, Bill Clinton, in his 1996 campaign.
“The United States can, must and will lead in this new century,” she said in a 2010 speech. Other countries “look to America not just to engage but to lead.”
There was a critique of Obama hidden in that sentence. “Engagement” had been the watchword of Obama’s foreign policy; his secretary of state was saying, in effect, that engagement is nice – but not nearly enough.
Unlike Clinton, Biden almost never utters the words “indispensable nation.” When I asked his aides for a guide to his global thinking, they pointed me to a 2009 speech in which he placed himself squarely on the side of Obama’s belief in multilateral engagement.
“We’ll engage. We’ll listen. We’ll consult,” he said. “America needs the world, just as I believe the world needs America.”
Military intervention has divided Democrats, often bitterly, in almost every election since the Vietnam War half a century ago. So far, in this campaign, it hasn’t, but if Biden runs, that’s likely to change.