Ask the blogger

Posted By David Rothkopf Monday, August 24, 2009 - 12:06 PM Share

I'll be doing a Washington Post "live chat" this morning at 11 a.m. to discuss my article in Sunday's paper about Hillary Clinton's "quiet revolution" as U.S. secretary of state. You can submit your questions here.

My take:

Amid all the distractions, what is Clinton actually doing? Only overseeing what may be the most profound changes in U.S. foreign policy in two decades -- a transformation that may render the presidencies of Bill Clinton and George W. Bush mere side notes in a long transition to a meaningful post-Cold War worldview.

The secretary has quietly begun rethinking the very nature of diplomacy and translating that vision into a revitalized State Department, one that approaches U.S. allies and rivals in ways that challenge long-held traditions. And despite the pessimists who invoked the "team of rivals" cliche to predict that President Obama and Clinton would not get along, Hillary has defined a role for herself in the Obamaverse: often bad cop to his good cop, spine stiffener when it comes to tough adversaries and nurturer of new strategies. Recognizing that the 3 a.m. phone calls are going to the White House, she is instead tackling the tough questions that, since the end of the Cold War, have kept America's leaders awake all night.

Fire away.

EXPLORE:MEDIA, OBAMA ADMINISTRATION, U.S. FOREIGN POLICY

(3)

HIDE COMMENTS LOGIN OR REGISTER REPORT ABUSE

BRETT

8:08 PM ET

August 24, 2009

I was not particularly

I was not particularly impressed, David. You act as though it's part of some revolution, really taking speed with the Obama, to actually consult with other states and emphasize partnership and cooperation.

But isn't this pretty typical? Bush consulted with the new powers - India and China - extensively, although he had a tendency to snub Russia. Clinton did the same before him, and Bush Sr as well.

ZATHRAS

4:11 AM ET

August 25, 2009

Formula

Fans of Sec. Clinton have been following a kind of formula when defending her, since the 1992 Presidential campaign at least.

The first part of the formula is complaint, about how mean Clinton's opponents (sometimes) and the media (always) are being to her. Second comes extravagant claims for how brilliant, revolutionary and transformative Clinton is at whatever she happens to be doing at the moment. The third part is dismissal of evidence that might lead one to a different conclusion, as irrelevant or unimportant. If there is more than a little such evidence, this dismissal can take some time.

Finally, buried at the end, come a few paragraphs that sometimes dwell on interesting and potentially useful things Clinton is doing, or is at least making it possible for someone else to do, in the limited area of responsibility available to her. Rothkopf follows the formula pretty closely in his Post piece, which is a shame. He'd have done no injustice to his subject by writing a column explaining the formidable task facing the Secretary of a Department badly weakened during the last two administrations, as she tries both to restore the Department's influence and to push the government toward addressing new world conditions in appropriate ways.

I think he wanted to write such a column, but by the time he finished touching all the required bases he only had time to throw out a few quick mentions of intentions and appointments. As I say, too bad -- I understand why the complaints, the extravagant claims and the dismissal might be important within Clinton's circle, but can't think why this formula ought to matter to someone merely writing about her.

DAVE PORTER

12:29 AM ET

August 26, 2009

Foreign languages and study abroad in US education

Someone in this administration needs to step up and advocate for increased foreign language and study abroad programs in US education K-20. More immersion programs starting in kindergarten. More Mandarin, Arabic, Urdu, Turkish and other strategically critical languages. Permitting states and local school districts to use public funds they already have to send students studying abroad.

The key to serious, long-term engagement with other countries is having US citizens who know their languages and have spent time in their cultures. About 3 million students graduate from US public high schools each year. Getting 5% of them to spend a high school year abroad would seem possible - that's 150,000 students per year. Given its strategic importance for our future, China should have 50,000 US high school students studying in it each year. That's how the US should engage China, and we need not spend more money, just shift how we spend what we now have.

That's what Secretary Clinton should be advocating if she wants to make big, significant changes.