Hilliary Clinton, the person, will shortly be the subject of intense examination by the media and electorate.

I’m not a fervent people person, so I’ll watch, with many of the rest of you, to see how Clinton the person, and the candidate, unfolds. But even at this early stage, I have one reasonable surmise. In the area of foreign policy, Hillary Clinton has  the potential as President  to rival the effectiveness of Henry Kissinger in the Nixon Administration.

In the execution of foreign policy, no amount of intelligence can compensate for the lack of prior exposure to the field. Henry Kissinger acquired his experience vicariously, through study. Hilliary Clinton acquired  experience as Secretary of State. In her tenure, she broke with the Obama Administration on Syria, showing that she is not in thrall to the policy wonks and, in fact, has independent judgment.

It may be constitutionally difficult for a President oriented toward domestic issues to deal with an evil world. In domestic politics, one tries to see the best in people. With international relations, one needs to see the worst. Incorporating the two mindsets seems to defy the brightest of humans. At the Yalta conference, F.D.R. attempted to charm Stalin as if he were some rogue of an old pol.  Apart from issues related to his health, F.D.R.’s social gambit included jokes at Churchill’s expense. The idea, and error, that human charm works in the international sphere the way it does domestically, is recurrent. Among foreign diplomats, it’s called “going native”, with a recent occurrence the fond remarks of Dennis Rodman about Kim Jong-un.

Going native may be related in some way with the Stockholm Syndrome. Put in a situation where one must deal with a threatening person, or group, one superimposes an unjustifiably benign image.  Hilliary Clinton is unlikely to fall into the trap.