YOU WOULD THINK that the nomination of U.N. Ambassador Madeleine Albright to be secretary of state would have been feted with hosannas by Bill Clinton's Washington constituency. A woman, and this after 63 men in the job! One might be forgiven for thinking that the sound of cheers would be drowned out only by the shattering of the much-touted glass ceiling.
And yet there was something odd in the response to the president's announcement of Albright on December 5. Republicans expressed confidence in Albright's abilities and respectful disagreement with her opinions, which many of them had battled especially in the first year of the administration. Sen. Jesse Helms called Mrs. Albright a "tough and courageous lady" and predicted a smooth confirmation process. On Larry King Live, former secretary of state George Shultz said that he thought the country would be in good hands. The reaction of some liberals, however, can only be described as amazingly condescending.
Feminists immediately did their best to reduce Albright's selection to a political payoff an acknowledgement by the president not of Albright's own skills, but of feminist clout. Patricia Ireland of the National Organization for Women took credit for the choice because, she said, she pushed Albright in meetings with Clinton. On Nightline, Ireland's rival Eleanor Smeal argued that, unlike other secretaries of state, Albright will have not one but two constituencies: the president of the United States and the women of the world, who saw to it that she could preside in Foggy Bottom. Clinton was the first president to have been "elected by a gender gap," Smeal said, and so women had some chits to call in here.
Remarkably, other liberals decided to hold Albright to the same dismissive standard they had used on Clarence Thomas's nomination to the Supreme Court: She could only have been chosen because of her sex. Hodding Carter, State Department spokesman under President Carter, said on Nightline that he was delighted with the selection, but, objectively speaking, would someone with Albright's qualifications but a first name of, say, Max, ever have gotten this chance? Not likely, in Carter's view. On the Newshour with Jim Lehrer, Mark Shields expressed distress with what he thought was presidential disingenousness about Albright's ascension. He demanded, "Was he aware she was a woman? You'd better believe it!" And, Shields asked, "Why can't he be honest about it?"
Washington Post columnist Jim Hoagland was harsher; he derided Albright as an intellectual lightweight who "will serve as a spokesman for Clinton more than as an originator of policy or grand principles. The heavy lifting in shaping foreign policy is likely to be done by [national security adviser Sandy] Berger and [deputy secretary of state] Strobe Talbott."
What gives? It is ludicrous to cavil at Albright's qualifications: She has been a leading figure in the Democratic party's foreign-policy establishment for 20 years. She had a high-ranking post on the National Security Council during the Carter administration and had cabinet rank in Clinton's first term. If she seems not quite experienced enough, that is only because her party was refused access to the executive branch for 12 years. And Albright's record is a substantial one; indeed, Republicans would do Albright a service by according her the dignity of taking off the gloves and dealing honestly with her when her confirmation hearing comes up.
Her four years at the United Nations provide plenty of fodder to discuss the vision she is said to lack. We are not talking about a cipher here. Albright is highly articulate and will no doubt enter the give-and-take with gusto. Many Republicans will find themselves unhappy with that vision, or at least parts of it. She was a force behind Presidential Policy Directive 13, which caused an uproar in the summer of 1993. Directive 13 outlined a new policy of "assertive multilateralism" and "nation-building." At least rhetorically, these concepts were dropped like hot potatoes by the White House when American helicopters went down over Somalia a few months later.
Albright has been a strong advocate for an activist foreign policy. Colin Powell recounts in his memoirs that he nearly had "an aneurysm" when she demanded of him, "What's the point of having this superb military you're always talking about if we can't use it?" American troops are now in Bosnia, where she thought they should be, and not at their bases, where the Powell doctrine would have kept them. There's plenty of meat for a discussion during her confirmation hearing of the U.S. role in the world and the criteria for the use of force, questions that have befuddled foreign policy thinkers since the end of the Cold War.
And it would be interesting to hear how Albright's womanhood influenced the positions she has taken at the United Nations. Did she advocate sending American boys into harm's way in blue U.N. berets in behalf of the world's women? Did she launch her attack on Secretary General Boutros Boutros-Ghali in behalf of the world's women? Or excoriate Fidel Castro for shooting down unarmed civilian U.S. planes on behalf of women? Within the administration, has she advocated arming the Bosnians against the Serbs in behalf of women? Of course not. She did the job the president sent her to do.
The president has made his choice for secretary of state. Yes, it is a historic choice, but that doesn't mean a substantial nominee for the job ought to be condescended to in this manner. Such is the curse of quota politics, which turns people into tokens and diminishes individual worth.
It seems that the bean-counting that characterized Clinton'fs appointments in his first term is coming home to roost. Clinton's own supporters cannot imagine that he could appoint Albright because he thought her the best person for the job; in their eyes, Albright is a woman first and a public official second. Of course the president made some cool calculations about the value of a historic appointment; presidents always make such calculations when choosing high-profile members of their administrations. And of course the president could not admit to his calculation; that admission would hamper his new secretary of state by reducing her to a symbol. It is certainly pleasant to see Clinton hoist on his own quota-loving petard, but Albright deserves better.
Helle Bering-Jensen is deputy editorial page editor of the Washington Times.
by Helle Bering-Jensen