Alfred E. Newman spurned by White House----Democrats furious.

Sums up the Senate show trial of Condi Rice pretty well. To the litmus test Democrats you would think the job of Secretary of State required views on abortion, minority rights, feminism, and crime levels in Boston rather than our relationships with sometimes very hostile foreign countries who could destroy us. So what’s with this “job” anyway.

The recent span of service for Secretaries of State have been shorter than a Robert Downey Jr. drug rehab. What may be even more interesting is that since Dean Rusk (1961-1969) and Henry Kissinger (1970-1974) NOBODY has had any background for the job. Nobody has written anything about anything. With the single exception of Powell, we have had a succession of amateurs, political gravy train riders, and PC mediocrities. Kissinger and Rusk have been the only people of stature since Ike. Some samples:

George Schultz, the Reagan Secy of state, wrote nothing. His sphere of expertise was economics—Ph.D. in industrial economics from MIT—but he fit with Reagan’s fixation on Soviet Communism. Contrast this with Kissinger who had been writing about foreign policy since he was a teen.

Warren Christopher, author of nothing, served Carter as assistant secretary during the Iranian hostage crises and was Secretary of State under Clinton for four years. His main focus was the Arab Israeli conflict which resulted in the fiasco with Arafat at Camp David. No background whatsoever for the position. He’d been a government apparatchik in various places and an attorney.

Madeleine Albright, another author of nothing with absolutely no background in foreign affairs other than a her prior connection with the UN. And she was a woman, something the bean counting Clinton Administration wanted. A female version of John Kerry---she married a rich guy and collected all his money---making her a typical wealthy liberal. She got her political science degree from Wellesley and after that a Ph.D having something to do with Russia which is unavailable anywhere; after that, nothing. Her only writings had to do with the problems of women. Nickname behind closed doors: Halfbright.

Colin Powell seems to be different than all of them. Educationally he has nothing, he did not go to West Point and his entry into the army was through the ROTC. He got an MBA from George Washington University in Washington, DC and after that he was successful in everything he tried; a leader of extraordinary skill and courage. He was one of those people, like the totally unqualified---on paper---Ronald Reagan, who “just has it.” His only direct prior experience in hands on foreign negotiations was in Haiti.

It is really amazing when you think about it. It is entirely possible that our recent record in the foreign policy field has a direct correlation with the lack of qualifications of the people selected for this most important of jobs. This is a job formerly held by people like Jefferson, James Madison, John Quincy Adams, and Henry Clay, to name but a few giants. Almost all the pre-Civil War Secretaries were super qualified.

Not lately.

There should be something in the backgrounds of modern candidates to indicate a view of where the use of power fits in with diplomacy, something to show their views about nation states, how balance fits in to our interests, how aspirants view the hierarchal structures of government and the UN vs the asymmetric (totally uncentralized) non-structure of modern terrorist groups; small cells that have only their Muslim religion and their leader, Allah, to keep them in business. What about the long history of appeasement in Europe? Does the quest for peace result in peace at any price and the resulting lassitude of the population? Is true peace possible? In a world of warring religions can there ever be peace? What does one think about the clash of civilizations view of the world?

So is Rice qualified? Super qualified when measured against all before Powell. She has written copiously. She has a narrow field of expertise because she is a creature of the Cold War. Her understanding of Eastern Block armies and Soviet Communism is extensive. But nowhere is there a vision of the world. Nowhere is there a vision of how the United States has to pursue our interests. What are our interests? Trade? Business? Trade as a vehicle for Third World development? Nobody in the Democratic Party bothered to ask anything about anything important. All we can hope is that brain power counts for something.

Brains is what Rice has in abundance. Not that any Democrat cares.