Did Hillary Clinton accomplish anything as secretary of State?
| WASHINGTON
Did Hillary Clinton accomplish anything as secretary of State? That question is in the news at the moment because an Associated Press reporter asked something like it this week at a Foggy Bottom briefing and a State Department spokeswoman fumbled the response.
The specific subject was the Quadrennial Diplomacy and Development Review, a periodic reassessment of State Department organization that was a particular focus of Secretary Clinton. At Tuesday鈥檚 press briefing, spokeswoman Jen Psaki announced that the 2014 edition of the QDDR is now under way. So AP鈥檚 Matt Lee asked Ms. Psaki an obvious question: 鈥淥ff the top of your head, can you identify one tangible achievement that the last QDDR resulted in?鈥�
No, not really. She punted.
鈥淚鈥檓 sure there are a range of things that were put into place that I鈥檓 not even aware of,鈥� said Psaki.
By Wednesday other State Department officials had made Psaki aware of a number of things. She came to the daily briefing with a new answer, pointing out that the 2010 QDDR under Secretary Clinton had placed a greater emphasis on trade promotion, more fully integrated the concerns of women into the State policy framework, and established three new bureaus within the department, including a Bureau for Counterterrorism.
鈥淚 just wanted to highlight that as a follow-up,鈥� she said.
Psaki and Mr. Lee than became involved in a discussion as to whether this sort of thing was real progress or the shuffling of deck chairs.
More broadly, right-leaning writers have responded to this back-and-forth by asking whether the lack of more concrete diplomatic results for Clinton to point to might damage a Hillary 2016 presidential bid. Clinton鈥檚 State Department memoir 鈥淗ard Choices鈥� is due on shelves in a few weeks. What will it have to say?
鈥淲ill voters care if Clinton reorganized the Under Secretary for Economic Growth, Energy and the Environment?鈥� . 鈥淥r will they be looking for something much, much bigger?鈥�
At the right-leaning blog Power Line, Scott Johnson brings up then-President Eisenhower鈥檚 deflation of his VP Richard Nixon. Asked what major idea of Nixon鈥檚 that he鈥檇 adopted as president, Ike paused, then said, 鈥淚f you give me a week, I might think of one.鈥�
鈥淲hen it comes to identifying Hillary Clinton鈥檚 major accomplishments as secretary of State, one thinks of Eisenhower on Nixon,鈥� .
That鈥檚 all well and good, but we鈥檝e got a couple of things to add here. The first is that we would be careful with Nixon references in this context. After all, Nixon won the White House 鈥� twice. Historians rate him highly adept at foreign policy. His own hubris brought him low, not Ike鈥檚 gibe.
Second, secretaries of State are staff. Like it or not, it is the White House itself that drives most big foreign policy decisions. Foggy Bottom implements as much as decides. Does the public remember any specific accomplishments for Bush-era Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice?
And third, Hillary Clinton has been a public figure for decades. Her image is not dependent only on the outcome of her latest job. Most US voters have a fixed opinion of her one way or the other, and have since she was first lady. A discussion as to whether she鈥檚 responsible for a failed 鈥渞eset鈥� of policy to Russia isn鈥檛 going to change many minds.
That said, whether she was a good or bad secretary of State remains an interesting historical question that both includes and stretches beyond the issue of whether she could have prevented the fatal attack on US buildings in Benghazi, Libya.
Taking a first cut at an answer , diplomatic reporter Michael Hirsh judged Clinton a 鈥渉ighly competent secretary of state, but not a great one.鈥�
She traveled tirelessly, promoted so-called 鈥渟oft power鈥� of US image-building and value promotion, and was a realist in an administration that has numerous foreign policy idealists, Hirsh wrote last June.
Yet 鈥渟he left office without a signature doctrine, strategy, or diplomatic triumph,鈥� wrote Hirsh.
