He took Nixon’s counsel to heart–and became a better president for it. Succeed or fail this week at Camp David, Clinton is a far stronger statesman today than skeptics expected after early stumbles in Haiti, Bosnia and Somalia. How did he do it? By honing his intelligence with hard work and exploiting his gift for empathy. Reviewing how Clinton has managed the Middle East peace process is a good way to gauge how Al Gore and George W. Bush might handle similar challenges.
It all began with the handshake. Although the United States didn’t play a role in the 1993 Oslo agreement, Clinton insisted (over the objections of some at the State Department) on sealing the deal with a White House ceremony. Speaking to the Middle East over Israeli and Arab television, his message was clear: if the Israelis took risks for peace, they would be protected; if the Palestinians took risks for peace, they would be respected. His visible grief and moving goodbye to assassinated Israeli Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin and his unprecedented appearance before the Palestinian Parliament cemented emotional bonds with both sides.
Clinton’s charm is reinforced by his brain. The kind of mind that remembers precinct by precinct results from New Hampshire is tailor-made for negotiations over territory. Participants report amazement at Clinton’s ability to draw a map of Jerusalem from the Israeli perspective, then turn the paper over and draw it again as the Palestinians see it. In a context where details carry life-and-death consequences, the president inspires confidence by convincing all sides that he takes them seriously.
What about the guys on deck? In Congress Gore was expert on arms control and global warming. In the White House, he was in the room for every major military and diplomatic decision and often flew solo, negotiating with Russia on nonproliferation and leading the U.S. delegation to the Kyoto Conference. But for all his smarts and experience, he doesn’t have personal chemistry, or the intellectual imagination, to see how life looks through the eyes of his adversaries. Can he develop the empathy to match his experience?
Bush has the opposite challenge: he makes connections with everyone he meets, but has not yet shown the capacity to soak up specifics. True, he’s a quick study and he’s stocked his team with trusted old hands from his father’s days, but in the end he’s the one in the room. Bush must demonstrate that he understands the issues. Can he develop the depth and expertise to match his personal charm? No matter who wins, you can bet Clinton would jump at the chance to tell the new kid what he needs to know. He’d probably bring the Diet Cokes.
