Elections & Political Parties

This past Saturday, March 16, 2013 marked an extraordinary moment in Pakistan’s history, as this is the first time that a civilian government has served its entire five-year term (from 2008 to 2013). And, for the first time in its history, the Pakistani military appears both unwilling and unable to mount a coup against any civilian government. The military has mounted four coups since Pakistan’s independence in 1947.

CAMPAIGN season in the United States is in full swing, with the presidential election scheduled to take place within one month’s time.

Early voting in some states has already started. Washington’s policy wonks are planning their election night parties, while campaign workers gear up for the home stretch, making last-minute phone calls to voters asking for donations and reminding them to vote.

For foreign policy enthusiasts, this election has been less than thrilling. With the exception of Iran and Israel, foreign policy is not a priority in this election.

The 2008 election results couldn’t have delivered a more crystal-clear message about the American desire for change — a yearning that President Barack Obama’s political strategists rightly tapped into with its core campaign theme: change we can believe in.

But more than the substance of his policy platform, Americans drew their support for Obama from two factors. First, the combination of his family background, personal history and achievements proved the American dream was possible.

As Barack Obama prepares for his second swearing-in as America’s chief executive, it’s worth considering how little is legally required to apply for the job. According to Article II, Section 1 of the Constitution, you need to be at least 35 years old, a resident of the United States for at least 14 years, and a “natural born” citizen. That’s it—no degree, no managerial experience, no strategic vision is explicitly required. You don’t even need to be born in the U.S.

Oh, boy.

Or maybe I should say: Oh, boys!

Because here we go again! As a female columnist at Foreign Policy, it is apparently my solemn duty to point out that President Obama has populated the top ranks of the national security and foreign policy establishment exclusively with fellas. Where are those binders full of women when you need them?

If media reports are true, Barack Obama will soon nominate Chuck Hagel to be secretary of defense. If so, it may prove the most consequential foreign-policy appointment of his presidency. Because the struggle over Hagel is a struggle over whether Obama can change the terms of foreign-policy debate.

Late last week, Sen. Jim DeMint, R-S.C., announced he was leaving the Senate to become president of The Heritage Foundation, the country’s most influential conservative think tank. From his new office perch just five minutes from the Senate floor, DeMint, a tea party gladiator, will enjoy unrestricted power to pursue America’s ideological renewal at six times his Senate salary. Members of Congress cashing in on their experience is nothing new. But it would be wrong and simplistic to assume DeMint is trading his institutional power as a senator for money and ideological purity.

In signaling that he’s likely to select Chuck Hagel as his secretary of defense, Barack Obama is sending a message about his second term. In the decade since 9/11, the spirit of Harry Truman has dominated American foreign policy. Now it may be giving way to the spirit of Dwight Eisenhower. And that could make all the difference in the world.

The new Congress next year will likely inherit high-stakes standoffs over many complicated issues, from financial credibility to immigration. Our elected leaders must be able to make difficult trade-offs and craft policies that reflect the best expert knowledge.

In its current dysfunctional state, however, Congress cannot have nuanced deliberations or make knowledgeable judgments. One big reason is that it no longer has the capacity to produce unbiased public-interest information.