The Power of Personality

I believe Mr. Zakaria is echoing what Anthropologists have been saying for years. The ability to travel cultural distances can lead to more substantive and accurate views of the world. Obama's complex identity and personal biography make him a compelling candidate not only because of his international experiences as a youth, but because he emobodies many aspects of American identity. He is bi-racial, grew up poor yet attended elite institutions for his formal education. Thus, Barack Obama, in a sense, fits in everywhere and nowhere at the same time. His unique identity politics compell him to be a uniter. This is not simply rhetoric but comes from a desire to see the world through different prisms as Mr. Zakaria puts it.

An american foreign policy based on a non-european heritage vantage point is exactly what the world needs right now. Hillary will never know the indignity of sitting in an american public cafe and have an old white lady sitting in the next table scurry away for fear of your dark color, exotic dress or foreigh toungue. This is the end of the remnants of wetern european dominated cultural imperatives which have lingered in subtle ways to continue to dictate the terms of global egalitarianism. Just as the U.S. had 2 civil wars to liberate african-amerians, so too will the citizens of former european colonies have to purge themselves of their european masters, and thank god we may now have an American president to lead the way. And yes it is intuitive understanding, mainly because it is existential - certainly John Kennedy understood about being the outsider as a catholic in his wasp dominated world of the previous century.

He isn't simply saying that a person must be from another country to handle foreign affairs. He is saying that being able to personally identify with other non-Americans and "[feeling] it in your bones" is just a powerful way, not the only way.

Perhaps Zakaria's PhD in international relations has made him incapable of judging the capacity of Americans to think beyond their culture? At very least, he has lost his ability to recognize and think outside of his own personal biases. His article 'The Power of Personality' is exactly the kind of ethnocentrism that he suggests himself and other non-Americans are inherently free from! The ability to see beyond one's culture is a learned skill - not a birthright. All cultures, by definition, carry emotional biases towards the ways of others, sometimes good sometimes bad. To suggest that being from some place and culture other than America, or having parents from those origins, somehow exempts you from ethnocentrism is inane.

Ultimately the values Fareed is getting at are valid and appreciable. But I, as an American who challenges myself constantly to see beyond my culture, am offended when he, for instance, suggests that Americans are incapable of recognizing the complex cultural and psychological significance of the burqa. Sure, Americans in general have a penchant for projecting their values, for believing that we have discovered the one right way to live in democracy. But who doesn't project, really, when it comes to ideas like morality and justice?

Any good citizen will not look at the color of a candidate's skin or the origin of their parents and assume that means something about their character or intellectual and political mettle. Trust me on this, even though I DON'T have a PhD in international relations, I know what I'm talking about.

I am disappointed by this article, despite being a big Zakaria fan overall. He is quite explicit in saying that Americans with extensive international exposure still will not measure up to non-native Americans in the realm of foreign policy savvy. I find this notion absurd.

I also don't think the debate has only two positions. I would say there are three components to foreign policy savvy: either experience or identitiy or judgement. A person sharing Zakaria's personal story but with fundamentally flawed judgement would have a less intelligent foreign policy perspective than someone who had spent their entire life in a small town in Missouri or Alaska, yet had impeccable judgement.

In any case, Obama's identity is not really like Zakaria's. Zakaria was a foreign national who spent a significant portion of his life outside the U.S.. Obama lived abroad until he was 4 years of age. I honestly don't think identity formed as a very young child forever elevates your foreign policy judgement. In fact, I find this notion absurd.

In any case, leaving judgement out of the debate is a fatal flaw in Zakaria's article, and it is a flaw that Obama does not share. He has questioned Clinton's judgement independent of considerations of the value of identity as opposed to experience. It is odd to seem to support someone in the manner Zakaria has done so- and with such a simplistic view of what makes a solid foreign policy approach.

test

I quite agree. Nobody who wants to deal with foriegn policy of the United States should be allowed to do so who has either lived as a foreign national for at least 10 years or had immersion experience as a international american worker for at least 10 years. Both should preferably be in multiple cultures.

I am always astonished at the bewildering and amusing misinformation so many americans have about the rest of the world. For peopels who think they can lead the world somewhere, it is usually a good idea to have some idea of where these peoples are and what some of their interest and values might be! I can tell you with strong credibility, that staying in tourist hotels at any level and doing the tourist bit for a week or 2 does not scratch the surface. It is amazing how many of our "leaders" do not even have passports, much less have traveled to any other culture.

I have had extensive work and travel experiences in Europe and Asia and I doubt that I have much understanding of many cultures. In addition, most of the world has changed dramatically in the last 20 years; so many of our thought leaders seem to think the world looks like it did at the end of WWII...that is one thing I am sure is not true!

Most Americans seem to think the rest of the world is just some chopped down version of rural America or else just dirt shanty towns. The cultural complexities hae no reality for America; how can we possibly assume some superior position to lead diverse peoples to some shared goal? We share nothing at all!

Why would you think that we should shape our direction or policies based on anything "other" than American experiences? How would you know the wants and needs of the Iowa farmer, or the kid from Compton unless your experience is based here? Its nice to have an international perspective, but it is necessary to be grounded in our own truths.

The title of the article is wrong. Everybody has a personality but not everybody has life experiences which empowered him or her

Every human being has a personality but not everybody get life experiences which empowered him or her..
Adriaan H, Boon van Ostade, Bandung, Indonesia

piratepolly: We all have different takes about written material. Maybe you should read my comment again more carefully, and be a little less presumptious.

Zakaria starts off by saying: ""There's a debate taking place about what matters most when making judgments about foreign policy???experience and expertise on the one hand, or personal identity on the other."" I haven't even bothered to comment on that but I will now. Neither of the choices matter most.
What matters is HOW the foreign policy judgements are made; HOW is the knowledge from experience and expertise used so that personal identity is more than felt in the bones.

I wrote this little paragraph some time ago, it relates well to the need to make American foreign policy reasonable and just--which I believe was at the heart of Zakaria's article--but don't think for a minute that his notion of personal identity trumps expertise, both are incomplete without this:

A little knowledge is a dangerous thing? What about a lot of it, poorly digested?
Knowledge which doesn???t go beyond recitation or exhibition of any amount of learning, knowledge with little understanding, that is the dangerous thing. Without personal judgement filtering and sorting, interpreting and further thought inspiring, all that knowledge is not just dangerous but deadly. It is, many times, what they shamelessly call ???expertise???-- a blank cheque to screw up.

Finally, thank you for translating Zakaria's sarcastic humor for me. Read the article carefully to see his heavy use of credentials, such as here: ""I've spent my life acquiring formal expertise on foreign policy. I've got fancy degrees, have run research projects, taught in colleges and graduate schools, edited a foreign-affairs journal, advised politicians and businessmen, written columns and cover stories, and traveled hundreds of thousands of miles all over the world."" I know, he just discovered that his personal identity has rounded up nicely all that expertise.

verbatim128-- Zakaria DOES feel it in his gut. That's his whole point. His last comment is a bit of sarcastic humor. Maybe you should read the article again more carefully.

India is paralysed now before the nukes of Pakistan.Indians can only do one thing that is pray to God.And the impression about Pakistan that when Nukes are with Islamic Possible Government what happens ,The answer is any Any Religious leader ,the Head of the Government will immediately diffuse the Nukes and dismental the Programm because in Islam Nukes are Haram,Prohibited

"" Trust me on this. As a Ph.D. in international relations, I know what I'm talking about.""
What a pathetic way to end a plea for making American foreign policy reasonable and just : "being able to feel it in your bones". Why not in the gut?

Yes, we trust you and your PhD just as much as we trust Condi and her pH.

Kashmir has now come to the forefront Zakaria. I am anxiously awaiting your article on al queda and their alliance with the kashmir rebels. Will India use it s arsernal on its neighbor if extremist elements take a hold of the government.

Who are these people like Zakaria who are transplants from other cultures and want to use the United States as an adopted country to hasten the end of the U.S. as we know it and transform the way we deal with third world countries? The U.S. literally stopped the most violent assault on freedom in WWII and then rebuilt the countries we destroyed. We are onew of the youngest countries and the oldest Democracies at the same time. What we do not need at this stage of our development is a massive influx of immigrants from turbulent and failed societies telling us how to do business. I don't care how many degrees Mr Zakaria has or how he fluffs up his resume or how warm and fuzzy he gets on his Gulliver travels - if he didn't come here to become an American and defend this country and leave his Indian village - then maybe he should go back home. I served in Vietnam, Somalia, and Iraq - and have people in my family who died in both World Wars - my generation is tired of pseudo intellectual immigrants using the United States like a house of prostitution for economic and social gain and then having the unmitigated gall to immediately begin criticizing the very government and people who embraced you. What did you bring to the U.S., Mr. Zakarias? Why did you come here? There is nothing in your article that even makes a passing reference to the people in this country who welcomed you.

Who has given Israel the right to have nuclear weapons and strike the other nations even now with nuckear weapons to launch its expansionist theology.And all other factors including Iran are only areaction to that.
If Israel guarantees not hiting the niebours and stop expantionist policy no one needs to produce destroyers like WMD.While every nation in the world is equal.whether it is USA with super power opr Leichtenstein in Western Europe with 35000 people.They have equal rights.Either all should not have WMDs or why all should not all?

Iran does not have the capability of striking Israel with a nuclear attack. There all talk and NO weapons just like Hussein. Does a country have the legal right under international law to strike a nation if they have not been attacked? In fact, attacking Iran does not solve the problem of Russia's vunerable nuclear arIsernal. IF you really want to solve a problem you have to go to deal with the source of the problem which is Russian and it's breakaway Republics. They do not seem to mind sharing their technologies with the highest bidders. Terrorist will take a page out of the Chinese playbook; why re-invent the wheel when we can just steal it and put our sticker on it. We continue to invent that certain countries in The Middle East have the military capbilities to compete with Israel. We are completely taking our eyes of the real threat; the source of nuclear proliferation; China and Russia. All the Iranians want is attention. The regimes only chance is AntiAmericanism.

I THINK ALL THE AMERICANS ARE ILLEGAL IMMEGERANTS FROM EUROPE!