As the President-Elect assembles his White House and executive branch team he, like all his modern predecessors, must answer difficult questions about the differences between his campaign rhetoric and his present claims and comments. The press is duty bound to highlight potential conflicts and the president is well advised to answer carefully and seriously, without attacking or belittling the questions or the questioners. In this morning's press conference called to announce Obama's national security team, the President-Elect faced these types of questions.How did he do? Good, but not great.
Obama was asked about the "evolution" of his view if Hillary Clinton's foreign policy credentials. A reporter noted that his harsh criticisms of candidate Clinton's foreign policy credentials seem at odds with his present nomination of her as Secretary of State. Obama tried (if half heartedly) to discredit the question as the kind that reporters "like to ask" but that are not really good questions. The unstated, but not unclear, implication of this approach is that campaign rhetoric is strategic, not substantive. This is a dangerous and very counter-productive implication. While the President-Elect did go on to say some substantive things in response to this question, he may have missed an opportunity to solidify the trust of those who voted for him, and cultivate the trust of those who did not.
More than any president in recent memory, Obama may be well positioned to introduce a new level of intellectual honesty into the American political dialogue. The reality is that Obama's criticisms of Clinton (and hers of him) were both sincere and strategic. What ought to be explained is that this does not make their present alliance hypocritical, or "political" in the pejorative sense of that word. Both candidates criticized the other's credentials and credibility in relation to their own, believing sincerely (I assume) that their opponent's claims were comparatively weak. The results of the primary voting, however, showed that Democratic voters were closely split on the two candidates. So when Obama decided to nominate Clinton for Secretary of State, he did so because she proved in her campaign to be tough, smart, and persuasive. Combining these demonstrated traits with her well established international credibility makes her choice to be Secretary of State perfectly reasonable and in no way "hypocritical."
While Obama did try to accomplish some of this in his extended response, I think he erred in trying, even if half heartedly, to signal that the question was somehow inappropriate or counter-productive. On the contrary, while it is an easy question to ask, it is also an important question and one that presents the next president with a golden opportunity to establish trust and lay the groundwork for a more intellectually honest approach to governing.
We all do and say apparently contradictory things. Sometimes they are contradictions, but sometimes they are not. A president willing to engage Americans about such subtleties would be a wonderful thing and this new president will never have a better opportunity to do this then right now, before taking the reigns and responsibilities of the Presidency.
While many analysts have signaled their joy at the election of an intellectual to the presidency, few have pointed out what really makes this a good thing. In my view, it should allow the president to "go off script" and bring Americans into the president's thought process. He should be willing and able to tell us how and why, not just what, in ways his predecessor could, or would, not. Leaders less gifted in this way must rely on talking points and message discipline. For Obama, over-reliance on these things could damage his credibility with the voters and rob us of the best thing about his intellectual sophistication; a president genuinely able (and willing) to explain difficult things to the American people.
In this day and age when Americans are less and less likely to get their information from common sources, the presidency may be the only institution capable of getting the attention of the entire country at the same time. This makes having a "communicator-in-chief" who is able to calmly, clearly, and credibly explain things absolutely crucial.