What is “Vigorous Diplomacy”?

What is “Vigorous Diplomacy”? I can’t honestly say that I know. It’s a phrase you’ve probably heard more than once this campaign season. John McCain and Hillary Clinton both say they advocate “Vigorous Diplomacy” and seem to consider it the cure-all for America’s anemic foreign relations. So, if two of the three finalists in this year’s election of the Free World’s leader think it so crucial, then shouldn’t we, at very least, try and figure out what the heck it is?

John McCain believes it involves becoming a “model citizen” in the global community. Last month, the Four-Term Arizona Senator cited the need to respect the collective will of our democratic allies as opposed to wielding our power to “do whatever we want whenever we want.” He holds that several issues have tarnished our collective rep. Among them: torture. And, while he may (by his own admission) not be an economic expert, I believe he’s the closest thing Americans have to an authority on the matter, so I yield to his expertise.

While the presumptive GOP-nominee has mentioned it in a stump speech or two, Tulzan sniper fire couldn’t keep Senator Clinton from what seems like an hourly mentioning of “Vigorous Diplomacy.” Hillary has offered it as a solution to just about every international conflict we have. Specifically: Iran and North Korea but China and Venezuela as well. These are strained relationships, to be sure, but none as tenuous as the definition of the phrase itself.

As best I can tell, there’s no generally accepted definition for “Vigorous Diplomacy.” As such, let’s begin by examining its constituent parts. Here are the respective definitions from Merriam-Webster’s online dictionary:

Vigorous:

1: possessing vigor : full of physical or mental strength or active force : strong

2: done with vigor : carried out forcefully and energetically

Diplomacy:

1: the art and practice of conducting negotiations between nations

2: skill in handling affairs without arousing hostility : tact

Invoking Occam’s Razor, the simplest answer when combining the definitions of the two words is that “Vigorous Diplomacy” is “Forcefully and skillfully negotiating between nations without arousing hostility.” Sound reasonable?

The proof, then, should be in the proverbial pudding. Do recent actions of Hillary Clinton fit our reasonable definition?

Let’s start our inquiry with Russia, a very large, very powerful democratic ally. Its leader, President Vladimir Putin, has a decade and half of experience in the KGB. Like the majority of the free world, Putin supported the invasion of Afghanistan but balked at endorsing our use of military force in Iraq. Bush [43] famously liked what he saw when he got “a sense of his soul” (whatever that means) and has worked with him to reduce both countries’ nuclear arms which remain a truly unfortunate lasting symbol of our generation’s most significant non-conflict.

So what has Clinton said or done to improve this important but strained relationship whilst on the campaign trail? For starters, she all but canceled-out Bush’s sentiments while campaigning in New Hampshire last January declaring that Putin “doesn’t have a soul.” To which Putin retorted “I think that a statesman must have a head at a minimum… And in order to build interstate relationships, one must be governed by the fundamental interest of one's own country rather than by emotions.” Ouch.

Furthermore, when asked in a February debate about the Russian heir apparent, Clinton stumbled over his name calling him “Medved... whatever” and implying that it was a moot point since he’s been “hand-picked” by the “soulless” KGB agent and will effectively be a puppet of the former regime. Nice.

One must conclude that our definition cannot be correct since the champion of Vigorous Diplomacy was neither skillful nor able to avoid hostility with the Russian leadership.

Let’s try a different track. Maybe this is one of those terms best defined by what it is not, for example, “antipathy” (as in “antipathy to people who aren’t like them”). You can attempt to describe what it means but your best bet in effectively explaining it is to say something to the effect of “it’s the opposite of sympathy.”

So, what is not “Vigorous Diplomacy”? After listening to the Clintons (all three of them now), the polar opposite of “Vigorous Diplomacy” must be “Cowboy Diplomacy”. Though mentioned by the Clintons nearly as often as “Vigorous Diplomacy”, “Cowboy Diplomacy” may be no less nebulous an idea. However, if one were to venture a contextual guess, one might believe that “Cowboy Diplomacy” is best thought of as “whatever the Bush Administration does.” And, what the Bush Administration did is invade a country without the approval of the global community (but, oddly enough, with the approval of the Clintons).

With that in mind, if I were to give you a completely ridiculous hypothetical situation… let’s imagine… I don’t know… what if the Olympic Committee went off the deep end and granted hosting rights for the 2008 Summer Olympics Games to a Communist country that has been exacting religious oppression not only it’s on own people but on its neighbors. Now imagine that country has the largest army in the world.

George W. Bush and Hillary Clinton offer two opposing diplomatic options in dealing with this entity: One says we should organize a boycott of the Opening Ceremonies of the event in an effort to embarrass the country into changing their ways. The other wishes to continue meeting one-on-one with their leadership hoping to come to peaceful resolution that results in improved standing in the world-wide community for all involved.

Thinking objectively, which one do you believe is advocating “Vigorous Diplomacy” as opposed to “Cowboy Diplomacy”?

This is seriously confusing.

Unfortunately, it seems we’re back where we started, without a definition for “Vigorous Diplomacy.” Therefore, I resolve to continue to define it as I always have.

“VD” a communicable illness, with no known cure, that has unpredictable, unfortunate and embarrassing side-effects, spread by the act of …[edit]…, perpetrated by the shameless among us and enabled by mass ignorance.