One theme of the campaign season thus far has been: underestimate Rick Perry at your peril. A particularly intriguing branch of this tree is the comparison not just of President Obama to Jimmy Carter, but also of Perry to Ronald Reagan.
At the Wall Street Journal, Gerald Seib notes that establishment Republicans were worried Reagan was too conservative, his criticism of entitlements too toxic, and his dissent from accepted climate science too damaging for his general election prospects—as many have said about Perry. And during last night’s debate Larry Sabato tweeted: “Perry’s opponents (D&R) sneer at Perry’s quips-for-policy, but that’s how Jimmy Carter felt about Ronald Reagan. Pay attention.” But I think the more apt comparison–and one that may be a better model for Perry to follow–is to Bill Clinton in 1992.
True, there are two major differences between the two situations: the fact that in 1992 people paid far less attention to the early primary candidates and that Clinton had no real credible opponent in primary debates. (Paul Tsongas, who won twice the number of states Jerry Brown did, used his debate time to declare “the Cold War is over. Japan won.”) Mitt Romney, meanwhile, has quietly become a very good debater. And the contrast is hurting Perry.
But the fact of the matter is by the time the 1980 election had rolled around, Reagan had become proficient in discussing foreign affairs. In 1992, Clinton had to learn fast. This is where Perry can learn from Clinton.
On jobs and the economy, Perry is clearly in his element. But foreign policy matters too, because even when it’s not the primary issue on voters’ minds—today, like many election years, it’s the economy—it is the area a president has arguably the most control over. And in a year when we mark the tenth anniversary of 9/11, national security policy will not be ignored.
It’s important to note Perry has a better grasp of foreign policy than he’s shown in the debates. He’s no stranger to China-related issues or the Middle East. But he has to turn that knowledge into better debate answers. Clinton was able to mask his relative lack of knowledge of foreign affairs not only because his main opponent’s nickname was “Moonbeam.” By the general election, Clinton was able to give fluid answers to foreign policy questions. He didn’t have to come across as brilliant (even Clinton’s famous charisma couldn’t pull off that kind of miracle), just coherent and familiar.
Here, for example, was Clinton explaining in an October 1992 debate that non-invasion didn’t mean non-intervention:
I agree that we cannot commit ground forces to become involved in the quagmire of Bosnia or in the tribal wars of Somalia. But I think that it’s important to recognize that there are things that can be done short of that, and that we do have interests there. There are, after all, 2 million refugees now because of the problems in what was Yugoslavia, the largest number since World War II, and there may be hundreds of thousands of people who will starve or freeze to death in this winter. The U.S. should try to work with its allies and stop it. I urged the president to support this air cover, and he did–and I applaud that. I applaud the no-fly zone, and I know that he’s going back to the United Nations to try to get authority to enforce it. I think we should stiffen the embargo on the Belgrade government, and I think we have to consider whether or not we should lift the arms embargo now on the Bosnians, since they are in no way in a fair fight with a heavily armed opponent bent on “ethnic cleansing.” We can’t [get] involved in the quagmire, but we must do what we can.
Again, it’s nothing sensational, but it is a coherent explanation of a principle of foreign affairs that Perry seemed to be hinting at last night. And Perry should also improve his ability to turn foreign policy questions into economic questions, as Clinton did. (“Economic security is a whole lot of national security,” Clinton said at that same debate.)
There is a lot of time between now and the first general election debate, if Perry is the nominee. But if he’s going to reassure voters, taking a page from Clinton might be more helpful than commentators telling him he’s already Reagan.