What Presidents Are For

The key question is whether that gap would have consequences in the White House. Bush aides argue that experience can be overrated. Former governors Jimmy Carter, Ronald Reagan and Bill Clinton all came to the Oval Office without foreign-policy credentials. "Foreign-policy decision making is not that different than other decision making," says Rice. "For chief executives, in government and out, judgment is more important than detailed knowledge."

Meanwhile, Gore's experience in the international arena has not all been positive. His relationship with Russian Prime Minister Viktor Chernomyrdin was a double-edged sword. Last week The New York Times disclosed that Gore signed a secret agreement with Chernomyrdin in 1995 that let the Russians off the hook for arms sales to Iran, then turned a blind eye when the Russians violated that agreement last year.

In the Oval Office, Bush might rely too much on advisers, and Gore too little. What's worse: a big-picture president, subcontracting major decisions to seasoned subordinates like Dick Cheney and Colin Powell? Or a more hands-on president, defying the consensus among his advisers if he thinks he knows better?

The problem with relying so much on advisers is that they invariably disagree with one another. In theory, the president, even if uninformed, can then fall back on his common sense. But history offers few examples of this sufficing. Carter, Reagan and Clinton all suffered a series of foreign-policy setbacks in their first year in office, mostly born of inexperience.

At the other extreme, the problem with a president who acts as his own secretary of State is that he risks exhausting the capital of the presidency. This might lend a bolder but more erratic cast to a Gore foreign policy, with a greater potential for both success and failure.

In a recent NEWSWEEK interview, President Carter said that either approach can work. Nixon and Bush used their secretaries of State (Henry Kissinger and James Baker) to negotiate in the Mideast, while Carter and Clinton did the work more directly. Either way, Carter said, "the president ultimately has to make the decisions," based on experience, knowledge of history and deep familiarity with the parties involved. "If you're missing any one of them, it's unlikely you will be successful," Carter said.