News: December 2007 Archives

I am a big fan of Fareed Zakaria. He is one of the few columnists out there who not only recognizes America's responsibility to appear moral to the world (and I mean that as an addition to "being" moral, not as an alternative), but also has the ability to understand and articulate how others view us, regardless of whether those people are friends or foes.

In this particular column, Fareed uncomfortably recognizes that the reason he prefers Barack Obama to Hillary Clinton on foreign policy is precisely because he believes Barack has a better "feel" for how non-Americans perceive our country. In other words, it's not about foreign policy "experience", it's about being able to empathize (in the sense of "deep understanding").

I call the recognition "uncomfortable" because of course, Fareed has made a career out of foreign policy (degrees, books, experience…). Yet, here he has to admit that while those gave him the necessary tools, what makes him really good as an advisor to America is his non-American upbringing.

Which leads me to something that always seems to be forgotten when we get around to picking our leaders. In the end, the true strength of a leader is not what they know, but how well they choose their advisors. It's a rare person who has the courage to surround themselves with people who are smarter than they are, and an even rarer one who can do so without being manipulated. Where would Kennedy have been without his brother as Attorney General? And since then, only Carter and (perhaps) George Bush Sr. have had those skills.

A leader may provide the ideology, but the advisors provide the tools and information. A smart leader knows that, and isn't afraid to pick advisors who differ in ideology but have greater skills.

But whomever becomes President next year, they could do far worse than choosing Fareed Zakaria as an advisor.