Filling Clinton’s Heels: A Look Ahead at John Kerry as Secretary of State

by Thomas Nath

As Hillary Clinton leaves the position of Secretary of State and John Kerry steps in, the inevitable flurry of comparisons and questions arise concerning both the legacy Clinton leaves and the challenges that await her successor. What will be the stamp Clinton leaves on the office, and how will Kerry step up to fill her position as one of the highest members in the United States government? While the answer is yet to be determined, their respective credentials offer positive implications for both. Neither Clinton nor Kerry surprised the American public when they were named to office; both were frontrunners practically upon announcement of the vacancy due to their extensive experience in international relations and United States policy. However, this does not mean their respective tenures have been expected to be completely positive, as the current international state of affairs is fraught with crises and tension—an environment in which it has proved difficult to bolster a positive image of the United States.

Clinton has, however, seemingly navigated the difficult setting into which she was placed with aplomb and skill. The foreign policy of George Bush’s presidency was marked by militaristic and diplomatic aggression, as well as the use of torture and the controversial prison camp in Guantanamo Bay, which drastically reduced foreign approval of the United States, especially in Europe, Asia, and Islamic countries.[1] Clinton sought to reduce the image of the United States as perpetuated by the Bush Doctrine, through which the United States was seen as a country promoting its own values and culture at all costs. Clinton pursued a much more tactful approach to negotiation and fostering ties with foreign ambassadors, as demonstrated by the one hundred and twelve countries she visited personally, totaling nearly a million miles in travel.[2] Her increased amount of personal interaction was not limited to heads of state and political leaders, either; Clinton sought to connect with the people of the countries to which she reached out, as shown when she said: “a diplomat is as likely to meet with a tribal elder in a rural village as a counterpart in a foreign ministry, and is as likely to wear cargo pants as a pinstriped suit.”[3] Her diplomatic measures led to much higher international approval ratings of the United States[4]. She brought about success in areas such as Burma, which saw one of the most drastic improvements in democracy and openness in the past two years, and which Clinton herself counts among her greatest successes.[5] Clinton also oversaw some major increases in national security; some claim she was the driving force behind the decision to kill Osama bin Laden[6], and while the airstrikes in Libya remain controversial for their interventionist tactics, they aided the removal of Muammar Gadaffi from power—and effectively gave support to the 2011 Arab revolts.

Not only has Clinton improved the status of the United States’ foreign relations, but her increased respect and thoughtfulness in diplomacy has avoided conflict within the executive branch as well, without undermining the strength of the country. Clinton arrived in office and was expected to have a fractious relationship with President Obama, given the contentious primary from which the two had just recently emerged. However, if any such divergence occurred between the two, it was never made public or highlighted in any way. Clinton showed unswerving loyalty towards the president, and the two seemingly maintained a harmonious and efficient working relationship that projected an image of solidarity within Obama’s cabinet.

It appears, then, that Kerry has much to live up to upon assuming this post. While he comes with no shortage of experience in the world of international politics, as he has spent the past four years as Chairman of the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations, more than mere knowledge is required for him to successfully follow in Clinton’s footsteps. Clinton was a worldwide diplomat who increased personal and strategic relations, reached out to all parties, and worked to increase the prominence of women everywhere. She remains an iconic figure of American democracy, who resonated with both the American and international public.  Indeed, Clinton leaves office with a 69% approval rating, which is one of the highest recorded ratings upon departure of this position in American history.[7]

For Kerry to continue the rich and meaningful legacy Clinton has left before him, he must find a way to connect with others in a similar fashion to give off the same air of strength and cooperation. This was seen as one of his greatest weaknesses in the 2004 Presidential election, as he was painted as elitist and wavering on the key issues,[8] failing to muster unity and support even against an unpopular president.

However, Kerry does seem to have two attributes that he can use to play to his strength as Secretary of State and make his distinct mark upon the office. The first is his history as a dissenter; Kerry served as a notable anti-war veteran following his service in Vietnam, giving testimony against the United States command in that conflict. Additionally, Kerry was a driving force behind the Iran-Contra hearings, which exposed the Reagan administration’s foreign policy double-dealings. Clinton found her role to be utter compliance with the president’s directives and plans; Kerry, on the other hand, could potentially use his ability to question the United States to his benefit. After the rampant imperialism of the Bush administration, many countries might respond positively to a high-ranking official of foreign relations who holds his own country accountable.

The second benefit Kerry possesses is his personal experience in both the Middle East and Asia, two arenas that arguably hold the most significance in the coming years. In the Middle East, Kerry will have to face not only the threat of an increasingly nuclear Iran, but also the instability caused by the Arab Spring. From the east, North Korea’s nuclear capacities also serve as reason for alarm, and trade and cooperation with China will also grow in importance as the Chinese become even more of a global superpower. Hillary Clinton recognized these problems and sought to “pivot to Asia”—a trend that Kerry should preserve, albeit with continued diplomacy and consideration. In his confirmation, Kerry’s goals seemed to be exactly that: a platform that encouraged both toughness and respect, while cautioning against an “increased military ramp-up.”[9] When it comes to the Middle East, Kerry took the initiative in 2009 to travel to Afghanistan and convince President Hamid Karzai to hold an election runoff, and also made initial attempts to reach out to Syria and begin negotiations.

In choosing his Secretaries of State, President Obama appears to have taken a page from the book of Abraham Lincoln, who notably comprised his cabinet largely from political rivals. While Lincoln utilized those who disagreed with him politically, President Obama has instead chosen to employ the skills of those who vied for the same office as he. Indeed, President Obama chose his chief adversary during the 2008 Democratic primaries, Hillary Clinton, and as her replacement, selected the Democratic candidate who preceded him in 2004, John Kerry. Obama’s utilization of Clinton as Secretary of State proved to be a wise decision, as his first term was notable largely for his successes in foreign policy—such as increased democracy in Burma and the killing of Osama bin Laden—which would surely not have been possible without Clinton’s experience and savvy in managing foreign relations and the State Department..[10] As her successor, Kerry faces the challenge not only of continuing to restore the positive image of the United States that Clinton helped foster, but also of overcoming the obstacle that deterred him in the 2004 presidential election: his perceived inability to connect with the American public. Only time will tell whether Kerry can reconcile these contrasting images of strong national security with international cooperation, and whether his penchant for making gaffes will undermine his credibility. However, he has proved himself to be experienced in the realm of foreign policy, particularly in arenas which are most directly pertinent to the modern climate, and a man who exhibits careful consideration. Thus, he is a man to whom many should place their faith; he does have large shoes to fill (or “large heels” as he jokingly remarked), but he has the potential to do the job with proficiency.