What’s this “pandering to dictators?”

It was one of the better questions in the YouTube debate – whether to meet with the bad guys. Meeting with the foe, to my mind, ought to be a judgment call. Are we ready to meet? Can anything good come of it? Be careful of unintended consequences. Favor being bold.

Look at the Cold War. After a lot of cold shoulders, there were thaws and refreezes, some surprise meetings, and finally it came to an end. I had the luck to be a close observer of an unexpected meeting regarding the Middle East: Anwar Sadat’s trip to Jerusalem in November 1977, when I was an Associated Press correspondent based in Israel. The Egyptian leader was welcomed warmly by the Israeli leadership and population; soon there was a peace treaty between Egypt and Israel, and Egypt got back all its lost territory. The Palestinians got little from that deal; they also invested little in what was then called the peace process. And today, 30 years later, we are where we are in that region. Many volumes have been written about all the bad stuff that has happened meantime, but Israel and Egypt still have their peace treaty. In 1981 Sadat paid with his life for his temerity (for me, there was a trip to Cairo to help cover his funeral).

In other words, a mixed result from Sadat’s bold move. But it did not happen at the spur of the moment, as it seemed at the time. There had been a great deal of secret diplomacy beforehand, and Sadat and the Israelis had a good understanding of the way they would resolve their issues before CBS guru Walter Cronkite appeared to be the intermediary who got Sadat and Israeli leader Menachem Begin to agree to meet.

The Clinton and Obama campaigns now are trading barbs about what they said – Hillary Clinton more cautious about meeting with such as Fidel Castro, the Iranians and North Koreans; Barack Obama more willing to have a meeting. I like Miami-Dade Democratic Chairman Joe Garcia’s wise comment on the controversy, as reported in an AP roundup:

“Obviously, Hillary’s answer was a seasoned answer within the realm of what we’re doing. But I don’t think Obama was intending to say we want to give legitimacy to dictatorships,” said Garcia, who said he was not affiliated with any of the candidates. Obama speaks to the Miami-Dade Democrats at an Aug. 25 dinner.

On the other hand we have the Republican ideologue’s comment, also from the AP roundup:

“Anything that looks like pandering to dictators is bad politics in South Florida,” said Republican state Rep. David Rivera of Miami. He predicted Obama’s comments would come back to haunt him, particularly if he becomes the Democratic nominee.

There must be some playbook where they get phrases like “pandering to dictators.” Loaded language is their stock in trade. Who panders anymore, anyway? Well, I know where that takes us in their playbook: it’s a word found under C.

An interesting sidelight is that the Miami Herald on Thursday printed three letters about the Clinton-Obama dustup, and all three were against the hard line of the Rivera camp.

Could more people be coming to understand that some bold thinking and action will be required? Our beloved country is in difficult straits. Being stuck with calcified thinking like "pandering to dictators" gives little chance to find a better course.