Obama won the first debate. Most agree on that. Polls will show a post-debate bounce. It may come as a surprise, however, to realize that Obama won less because of his performance last night, than because of the re-framing he had the courage to set in motion over one year ago.
The key to Obama's re-framing of the foreign policy debate was his rejection of the Bush Doctrine that reduced it to one keyword:
FEAR
And then offered an alternative:
RE-ENGAGEMENT
Obviously, Obama was not the first or only person to do this, but he was the first to do it well and, as a result, to set in motion a big new discussion.
In what follows, I identify what I consider the three key moments where Obama set the new foreign policy frame, both for reflection and as a reminder of what makes his debate position virtually unbeatable--particularly by a candidate like McCain who offers virtually nothing in terms of framing.
July 23, 2007: Obama Sets New Frame in Motion
Obama's reframing began in the July 23, 2007 so-called YouTube debate when he was asked by Anderson Cooper if he would meet without 'precondition' with world leaders recognized as enemies of the United States. Obama said he would. This is how the exchange went down:
COOPER: Let's go to another YouTube video.
QUESTION: In 1982, Anwar Sadat traveled to Israel, a trip that resulted in a peace agreement that has lasted ever since.
In the spirit of that type of bold leadership, would you be willing to meet separately, without precondition, during the first year of your administration, in Washington or anywhere else, with the leaders of Iran, Syria, Venezuela, Cuba and North Korea, in order to bridge the gap that divides our countries?
COOPER: I should also point out that Stephen is in the crowd tonight.
Senator Obama?
OBAMA: I would. And the reason is this, that the notion that somehow not talking to countries is punishment to them -- which has been the guiding diplomatic principle of this administration -- is ridiculous.
(APPLAUSE)
Now, Ronald Reagan and Democratic presidents like JFK constantly spoke to Soviet Union at a time when Ronald Reagan called them an evil empire. And the reason is because they understood that we may not trust them and they may pose an extraordinary danger to this country, but we had the obligation to find areas where we can potentially move forward.
And I think that it is a disgrace that we have not spoken to them. We've been talking about Iraq -- one of the first things that I would do in terms of moving a diplomatic effort in the region forward is to send a signal that we need to talk to Iran and Syria because they're going to have responsibilities if Iraq collapses.
They have been acting irresponsibly up until this point. But if we tell them that we are not going to be a permanent occupying force, we are in a position to say that they are going to have to carry some weight, in terms of stabilizing the region.
After that debate, the Clinton camp set in motion a critique of Obama for declaring that he would be willing to meet with dictators unconditionally--on the claim that it would be dangerous and would undermine the prestige of the Presidency. The critique was substantial and forced the Obama campaign to back peddle a bit. But the initial shock wave that Obama's answer created never really stopped resonating with the country.
What Obama did in that short answer in July 2007 was paint a clear distinction between what we had done up to this point in our foreign policy and what we could do in the future. In brief, he said: We will talk first.
Now, 'talk' is a deceptively complex concept that invokes an broad range of ideas when introduced to a debate on foreign policy. Expressing a priority for talking to enemy leaders, for example, projects a message of humility towards oneself and respect for others. It also evokes a vision of the global interactions rooted in conversation and interaction rather than violence. On some level, it also suggests a guiding theory of equality. As Eisenhower once remarked, we must treat even the weakest of nations as equal partners when we sit down at the table--and in so doing, we make ourselves stronger and world safer.
Obama's simple comment introduced all that into the debate. And the other candidates, the media, and even President Bush himself were forced to react to the new frame that Obama had begun to set.
October 30, 2007: Obama Set The New Frame
Keep in mind that in this election there has been only one new foreign policy frame introduced. Whether or not Obama came up with the frame on his own, he established it best and he defined every foreign policy discussion that came afterward as a result. Obama's July 23, 2007, answer began to unfold that new frame, but it was in another debate a few months later in Philadelphia were he set it for the first time in a broad, public forum (e.g., not in a much smaller forum, such as an NPR interview). This is what Obama said in that debate--and it is worth a careful read in light of what happened in last night's debate:
I think all of us are committed to Iran not having nuclear weapons...but I think there is a larger point at stake,...and that is we have been governed by fear for the last six years, and this president has used the fear of terrorism to launch a war that should have never been authorized. We are seeing the same pattern now. We are seeing the Republican nominees do the same thing. And it is very important for us to draw a clear line and say we are not going to be governed by fear.
We will take threats seriously. We will take action to make sure that the United States is secure. As president of the United States, I will do everything in my power to keep us safe.
But what we cannot continue to do is operate as if we are the weakest nation in the world instead of the strongest one, because that's not who we are. And that's not what America has been about historically, and it is starting to warp our domestic policies, as well. We haven't even talked about civil liberties and the impact of that politics of fear, what that has done to us in terms of undermining basic civil liberties in this country, what it has done in terms of our reputation around the world. (link)
In that comment from October 2007, Obama refined the broad distinction that still dominates the 2008 foreign policy debate. All candidates are defined by it. Either a candidate is for continuing the politics of fear, or a candidate is against the politics of fear in favor of a new kind of foreign policy based on re-engaging the world through diplomacy and establishing a new vision of a 'strong' United States. Engagement, strength, diplomacy--the opposite of unilateralism, fear, and saber-rattling.
Now, there were many times when Obama came back to this idea, but the next key moment happened in the January 31, 2008 when--amazingly--Obama predicted exactly what was going to happen in the first debate with John McCain.
January 31, 2008: Obama Describes What Will Take Place in First Debate With McCain
By the time the Democratic Primary reached January, the debates had narrowed to two final candidates. The key moment for Obama's ongoing effort to re-frame the foreign policy debate was the last meeting prior to Super Tuesday between Clinton and Obama in Los Angeles.
After a long series of exchanges on a variety of topics, Obama offered the following observation:
I will be the Democrat who will be most effective in going up against a John McCain...I don't want to just end the war, but I want to end the mindset that got us into war in the first place. (link)
Notice Obama's use of the word 'mindset.' This is a crucial word to introduce and a hallmark of the broader effort by Obama to dominate the entire discussion on foreign policy, not just to excel within the Republican frame.
What he was speaking to was the need to change how our foreign policy connects to how we view ourselves at a deep level. Are we a nation that faces the world and feels afraid? Or are we a nation who faces the world with the confidence that we can work with anyone on any challenge to solve any problem that arises? How we answer those questions, Obama was suggesting, will either take us back to the era of George W. Bush's policies, or forward to a new era. And we must go forward.
By January 2008, in other words, Obama had set a strong frame for foreign policy, understood its broad implications, and was practiced at invoking and holding it in a high-profile media debate.
Conclusion: September 26, 2008
The only recognizable framing offered by McCain is 'experience,' which is effective at some level. But 'experience,' is less a frame for foreign policy than a general frame about character. What matters most for the 'experience' frame is the degree to which McCain has already undermined it by nominating Sarah Palin as his VP.
On foreign policy, McCain offers facts, not frames. In the first debate, we saw McCain attempt over and over again to prove that he had more facts than Obama (he did not) and that his facts were the product of his long term engagement with the facts of foreign policy.
Obama took a completely different approach. Certainly, he established his proficiency in (most of) the facts of foreign policy. But his main goal was to hold and set the frame: His foreign policy would reject the politics of fear and re-engage the world--particularly through high-level diplomacy.
McCain flailed against that framing effort, but as is always the case frames trump facts. And McCain's efforts fell short.
It is worth considering over the next Presidential and Vice Presidential debates exactly why the Obama camp does well. Even if he may seem to not carry every question, his strength is not in the way he marshals facts, but in the consistent effort he has invested in framing key issues. Last night we saw Obama's strength on framing foreign policy. Moving forward, we will see his ability at framing domestic issues, energy, healthcare, the environment, and education.
Stay tuned and stay focused on the powerful tool of framing the debate--for the first time after a long hiatus, firmly in the hands of the Democratic candidate.