President Obama went to 3
state dinners in Asia. Here’s how they work.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/wp/2014/04/30/president-obama-went-to-3-state-dinners-in-asia-heres-how-they-work/?wprss=rss_congress&_monetaClick=eyJ3aWRnZXRfaW5zdGFuY2VfaWQiOiIyMGNkMDdmZi0yMTA5LTQ0MDgtYjc5Yi03ZDM3ZDMwZm
State dinners are the
glitizest of official functions, where everyone wants an invite, wardrobes and
the guest list are scrutinized, toasts are made and bands play everything from
the Star-Spangled Banner to the theme from "Beverly Hills Cop" (more
on that later).
President Obama attended
three during his eight-day trip to Asia -- in Japan,
Malaysia and the Philippines.
(There was no state dinner held in Korea.) So what is an official state
dinner and when do they happen?
When President Obama goes
abroad for an official state visit he gets a state dinner. A state visit
typically involves a formal greeting at the airport, a visit to the residence
of the head of state, a visit to some type of business or university that's not
regarded as an overtly political meeting. Plus the dinner, said Erik Goldstein,
a professor of international relations at Boston University.
If President Obama travels abroad simply for meetings or a summit, it is not a
state visit. So he can keep the tuxedo at home because there won't be a state
dinner.
So what happens at these
dinners? Well, the dinner is a way to showcase that the country is playing host
to one of the world's most coveted guests. And the people invited tend to be
bigwigs -- chief justices, ambassadors, politicians and the like.
There's lots of pomp and
gifts are usually exchanged. In the Philippines,
President Benigno Aquino conferred on President Obama the Order of the
Sikatuna, an honor that has been bestowed on U.S. presidents dating back to
Dwight D. Eisenhower. It's a national order of diplomatic merit only given to
people who have rendered exceptional services to the country.
There are also toasts and
public niceties. This trip allowed Obama to sound a personal note. In Japan, President
Obama spoke about coming to Japan as a six-year-old and said he has "never
forgotten the kindness that the Japanese people showed me." In Malaysia, Obama
recalled his mother's love of the art of batik and how it gave her a window
into the lives of others. In the Philippines, he paid homage to
Aquino's family. And, like most people who give toasts, he tried to crack a
joke or two.
"To all you men out
there, you look very good, but I think you'll agree that the women outshine
you," President Obama said.
Then, of course, there is the
food. In Japan, "Ice
Cream in the image of Mt.
Fuji" was served,
along with a 1994 Chateau Margaux (average price $467 a bottle). In Malaysia it was
Malay fusion food including spiced seared ahi tuna with wasabi cream and other
"not so spicy" things, according to an official. In the Philippines,
one of the appetizers was lobster kilawin carpaccio with baby sprouts and
fiddle fern with kalamansi jam.
And the music. Each dinner
featured an orchestra. In the Philippines Obama walked the red carpet to the
theme from "Beverly Hills Cop."
Although he went to three in
10 days, President Obama rarely hosts state dinners; there have only been seven
stateside so far during his tenure. The most recent was earlier this year for
French President Francois Hollande. Those events are mainly viewed as an
opportunity to see who is dressed well, who is on the guest list and who is
performing (Beyonce, in 2010). Past attendees have included Eva Longoria,
Whoopi Goldberg, Blair Underwood and Mark
Sanchez. Plus two guests the White House would rather forget: party crashers,
gubernatorial candidate and aspiring reality television stars Tareq and
Michaele Salahi.
Katie Zezima covers the White
House for Post Politics and The Fix. She previously worked for the New York
Times in Boston and the AP in New Jersey. She was a 2011-12 Knight-Wallace
Fellow at The University of Michigan. Follow her on Twitter @katiezez .
3 reasons why we have a
love/hate relationship with political dynasties
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/wp/2014/04/30/3-reasons-why-we-have-a-lovehate-relationship-with-political-dynasties/
A new NBC News/Wall Street
Journal poll shows 69 percent of Americans say they would prefer that the Bush
and Clinton political dynasties don't dominate the 2016 presidential race.
Americans really don't like
dynasties, it would seem. Except that they do. In fact, they love them.
Every time talk turns to
Hillary Clinton or Jeb Bush running for president in 2016, the boo birds come
out in force. Even former first lady Barbara Bush has said the United States
needs to move past its history of voting for the same political names over and
over again.
But the fact is that for
everyone who professes to be disgusted with the idea of another Bush or another
Clinton inhabiting the White House, there are many more people who are quite
fond of the predictability and ease of voting for a name they know. They might
not know how biased they are in favor of political dynasties and might claim to
be finished with them, but it's more of an abstract, cathartic feeling than
something that translates into actual voting.
Case in point: The new
Washington Post-ABC News poll.
The poll shows both the Bush
and Clinton political dynasties are viewed in quite positive lights, though the
Clinton family
reigns superior for now. While 64 percent of registered voters have a favorable
view of the Clinton
family, 56 percent say the same about the Bushes.
Even among partisans, there's
quite a bit of admiration for the other side's leading political dynasty.
Thirty-three percent of Democrats like the Bush family, while 36 percent of
Republicans -- and even 48 percent of self-described conservatives! -- profess
admiration for the Clintons.
The numbers for the Bush
family, in particular, are striking, given George W. Bush left office on such
bad terms and his dad, George H.W. Bush, lost reelection in 1992. While polls
show Bill Clinton's
presidency is remembered fondly and Hillary Clinton was a popular secretary of
state, the Bushes' recent political history isn't exactly the stuff of a
beloved dynasty.
So why do Americans love
dynasties, even as they say they hate them?
1) Voters are significantly
inclined, when in doubt, to vote for the name they know
This is why, in the absence
of a well-funded challenger, congressional incumbents are often reelected in
numbers significantly more favorable to their party than the overall makeup of
their districts. When people don't know the other guy/gal, they are much more
likely to just vote the incumbent back into office. After all, the devil you
know is better than the devil you don't.
(This appears -- on the
surface -- to be changing somewhat, with Americans who are skeptical of
Congress starting to profess the idea that their own member is part of the
problem too. But to this day, very few incumbents actually face serious
challenges, even in modestly competitive districts. And the idea that Americans
will vote out incumbents of both parties en masse is far-fetched, to say the
least.)
2) A famous name is a great
way to get your foot in the door
Building a political career
often involves rising from low-level state or local office to the big show. But
when your family has been cultivating political (and financial) ties statewide
or nationwide for years or decades, the barrier to entry is much lower.
This is a big reason why, as
Christopher Ingraham notes over at Wonkblog, Congress is chock full of members
who just happen to be related to former members. The moment a Kennedy announces
a campaign in Massachusetts (see: Kennedy, Joe
III) or a Bush in Texas
(see: Bush, George P.) they will immediately be taken seriously.
3) Political dynasties get
better with age
The tendency for nostalgia in
American politics is quite strong. Almost every president who leaves office
sees his personal image numbers -- and by extension, his name -- gradually get
better regarded as the years pass.
As noted above, the Bush name
was deeply unpopular in 2008. Yet today, Americans are about evenly split even
when it comes to the once-historically unpopular George W. Bush, and they're
even more fond of the Bush name generally.
George H.W. Bush faced some
tough times in office too. Today, he's the smiling 89-year old who wears
colorful socks and is friends with the man who beat him, Bill Clinton. And even
when his son's presidency was stumbling badly in its second term, 62 percent of
Americans said they still liked the senior Bush.
People, quite simply, are
much more likely to forget the bad things and remember the good things about a
political family.
So Americans can complain all
they want about political dynasties; they're going to keep voting for them --
over and over again.
Aaron Blake covers national
politics at the Washington Post, where he writes regularly for the paper’s Post
Politics and The Fix blogs. A Minnesota native
and graduate of the University
of Minnesota, Aaron has
also written for the Minneapolis Star-Tribune and The Hill newspaper. He joined
the Post in 2010. Aaron, his wife, Danielle, and his dog, Mauer, live in Northern Virginia. Follow him on Twitter at @AaronBlakeWP
.
And in an age in which it's
hard to get a majority of Americans to agree on anything and especially any
politician, that level of support is striking.