When we lived in New York a decade ago we used to have a kind of kitset itinerary for visitors depending on how long they stayed. We had the two week tour, the five day tour, and even the intensive two day tour.  The latter involved a hurtle up the Empire State, the early ferry to the Statue of Liberty, Met, Broadway show. It was fun, kinda exhausting, but a bit superficial in all honesty.

It feels like John Key has been on the diplomatic equivalent of the two day tour.  It is not that often I found myself in agreement with Fran O’Sullivan but her column in Saturday’s Herald zeros in on the celebrity approach to our international relations from Key. Fran says

When Key first became PM his boyish “aw shucks” approach to meeting the Queen, or even departing US President George W. Bush at Apec, was endearing.

But with nearly a year as PM under his belt he should now be notching up some foreign policy achievements.

This is a good point. Key’s lack of foreign policy experience was only a minor issue at the election, and his generally affable nature seemed to get him off on a good footing in international meetings. But, as we all know, that is fine for the first date, the next ones need to have a bit more going on if the relationship is to flourish. Fran continues

Instead our Prime Minister is now on the verge of being seen as a celebrity-obsessive himself, a political groupie of the first order who will not let a chance go to embellish his Rolodex by opportunistically hunting down major stars like Bill Clinton or Tony Blair to learn leadership skills from the masters.

For a former “master of the universe” who has made buckets shoving around the currencies of many of the countries whose leaders he is now pallying up to, it is all a bit cringe-making.

Fran goes on to say she has seen Key do something substantive on foreign policy, but to be honest there is scant evidence of that in his statements, despite a nicely crafted, but light on detail speech to the GA that has been phisked by my colleague Phil Twyford, here.

Fran also raises questions about why New Zealand is returning the SAS to Afghanistan as the rest of the world contemplates reducing their contribution.

New Zealanders should care that Key has committed the SAS special forces to Afghanistan at a time when other US friends and allies are on the verge of withdrawing their troops.

Other political leaders now believe the Nato-led war against the Taleban will prove just as intractable as the Soviets’ doomed foray into Afghanistan.

Key and Obama have apparently had serious talks by phone on Afghanistan. But our Prime Minister won’t tell us the real substance in the secret letters he has exchanged with the US President.

We shouldn’t have to wait until or if an SAS soldier comes home in a body bag before expecting answers to the hard questions.

Certainly many of those I spoke to in DC and elsewhere were taken aback NZ is pushing on with something that even the Obama administration is not yet confident about.

There is a lot more to being a PM than taking photos and meeting people, and I am with Fran here, the celebrity approach needs to end sometime very soon if NZ is to retain its credibility on the world stage.

Probably my favourite paper at university was a second year American history course taken by Dr Rob Rabel at Otago University.  It was always going to be a favourite when Rob let me do an essay on whether Happy Days was a reflection of the social climate of the 1950s (conclusion- no it was a reflection of the yearning in the 70s for a version of the 50s that possibly did not actually exist).

One of the things Rob emphasised was that American voters hugely valued character in their politicians.  He drew a picture with the Nixon period at the centre that showed that incresingly the character, integrity and value set of a politician mattered to Americans. For Barack Obama most Americans I have met on this visit have a sense of a strong character. He has fessed up to a few indiscretions in his youth, but he has generally engaged Americans as someone with personal integrity- a good husband and father, honest, forthright and not likely to lead them astray.

One thing everyone we have met with agrees is that Obama has bucket loads of another very important C- charisma.  It is an essential trait for an American President, and anyone who meets him or hears him speaks comes away in awe of man who can hold a crowd, send a message, give off a clear emotion.

But the question that keeps being asked in meetings here is the other critical C- credibility. On any number of issues people are looking for the substance to match the undoubted vision and rhetoric. Establishing credibility was the same answer to questions I put to a left leaning academic and right leaning economist on how he would succed with climate change and healthcare respectively. Both said that Obama needed to establish his credibility in these areas if he was to bring the American public with him.  On climate change it is to present a credible position that finds a multilateral solution that does not “destroy” the American economy, and on healthcare to credibly show how all Americans will be better off with his reforms.

So how, in this madly complicated, multi layered society, can you build credibility? Obama has blitzed the Sunday talk-shows, and is easily the most media accessible President in the modern telecommunications era.  But he is running into another problem- the credibility gap created by the very media agencies he is on.  We had a great presentation here on the increasing partisanship of the major media outlets, and it is not running in Obama’s favour.  More and more people are watching the cable networks and listening to talkback both of which running heavily against him.

In the campaign Obama was credited with speaking directly to the people through a potent combination of new technology and old fashioned organising and campaigning. There are some on the Democrat side of politics who are looking to the Obama administration to recapture that spirit now, before the key policy debates get away on him.

For many, including me I might say, we want to give him the benefit of the doubt.  His working style is often of low-key engagement, working the room rather than shouting through a megaphone.  But that is a slow path to establishing public control of the issues.

Whatever, spending time here makes me realise the value of another C, that was fairly absent in the last eight years in the USA. Competence.  That is one thing with Obama that Americans can be sure of, and very grateful for.