The White Peril 白禍

The Nikkei noted on yesterday's evening edition editorial page, as the headline put it, "War of words revolving around diplomacy boils over." (Actually, the word used is 舌戦 [zessen: lit., "tongue battle"], though I'm not sure I care to picture Hillary and Barack in a tongue battle with each other. Or anyone else, for that matter.) The subject, of course, was the sparring over head-of-state visits with dictators and military intervention. The content of the article doesn't give a Japanese viewpoint, really, but it's significant that it was featured so prominently, with pictures of Clinton and Obama and translations of their biggest soundbites. (I don't remember what the exact words were in English, but in the Nikkei, Hillary says, "Irresponsible and immature," at Obama, who responds, "You're just like Bush.") Japan knows that it needs to pay attention to these things, especially when the DPRK is mentioned. I liked Steve Chapman's take in Reason, BTW:

On the morning after the South Carolina debate, the Clinton campaign trotted out former Secretary of State Madeleine Albright to gush about the senator's declaration that she would not meet with various dictators "until we know better what the way forward would be." Said Albright, "She gave a very sophisticated answer that showed her understanding of the diplomatic process."

Being praised for your diplomatic sophistication by Madeleine Albright is like being complimented on your sense of humor by John Kerry. Albright is the renowned diplomat who helped the Clinton administration blunder its way into an 11-week aerial war in Kosovo. Albright was confident that Serbian President Slobodan Milosevic would cave at the first whiff of gunpowder, and was shocked when he didn't.

...

There you have it. A Hillary Clinton presidency promises to unite Madeleine Albright's zeal for using bombs in pursuit of liberal ideals with Dick Cheney's vision of the president as emperor. Won't that be fun?

I know Hillary sympathizers who've argued that Clinton has had to emphasize her willingness to use the military because there are too many voters who doubt a woman would be competent as commander-in-chief of the armed forces. But I agree with Chapman that her pose actually fits in with what seems like her sincere sense of mission. Camille Paglia noted that years ago, too, in her review of Clinton's memoir:

But perhaps it is more troublesome for democracy (where religion should be kept distinct from government) if Hillary's religiosity is genuine. It would certainly explain her air of smug moral superiority and her close to messianic view of her destiny as a reformer. The egotism of career humanitarians was dissected by William Blake and Charles Dickens and later satirised by Oscar Wilde, all of whom saw the nascent tyranny in fervent idealists with a masterplan for humanity.

On the evidence of this book, Hillary appears to believe that good intentions excuse all. Impediments to her lofty goals may have arisen partly through minor miscalculations on her part, she concedes, but most of the problems, in her view, have come from pigheaded reactionaries "who want to turn the clock back on many of the advances our country has made", thanks to the Democratic Party, a congregation of the elect whose mission is the salvation of mankind.