Two months into his presidency, Barack Obama is acting like a stereotypical Democrat on national security. He is reaching out to America’s enemies; he is preaching diplomatic engagement rather than flexing America’s military muscles, and he is following through on his pledge to bring the troops home from Iraq.

It is not surprising that President Obama is doing what candidate Obama said he would do. But when one considers that Democrats have spent 40 years fighting the party’s “soft” image on national security, his actions reflect a new and surprising confidence among Democrats. Instead of trying to “look” tough, the Obama team seems far more focused on doing what it thinks is in the country’s global interest. <

Over the years, few political stereo­types have done more damage to Democrats than that of weakness on national security. Consistently, Democrats have played the optics game, from Michael Dukakis’ ride in the tank to Hillary Clinton’s blustery 2008 declaration that she would “wipe out Iran” if it attacked Israel. The result has generally been political ridicule rather than benefit. 

Obama has rarely played the same game, beginning with his 2002 anti-war stance on Iraq. Following through on his campaign pledges, Obama has sent a diplomatic mission to Syria, reached out to Iran’s leaders and citizens, relaxed restrictions on travel to Cuba and offered Russian leaders a strategic “reset” button. In Afghanistan, Obama has matched an increased troop presence with hints of engagement with elements of the Taliban.

After the Bush administration’s recalcitrance in engaging America’s enemies, the change in tone is striking. The initial criticisms from the left that Obama was relying too much on hawkish Democrats and Republicans in his Cabinet seem like a faint memory today.

However, the barbed criticisms from the right continue. According to columnist Charles Krauthammer, the president is turning America into a “grinning Goliath staggering about sporting a ‘kick me’ sign on his back.” Sens. John McCain (R-Ariz.) and Joseph I. Lieberman (I-Conn.) warn against a “minimalist approach” in Afghanistan. Sen. Jon Kyl (R-Ariz.) and House Minority Whip Eric Cantor (R-Va.) called a rollback of funding for missile defense “dangerous” and “irresponsible.” And the decision to close Guantanamo Bay and end the use of torture led former Vice President Dick Cheney to accuse the Obama administration of weakening American security and “raising the risk” of a terror attack. The implication is that Obama is another in a long line of feckless Democrats who don’t understand the nature of the threats the country is facing and are too timid to confront America’s enemies.

In these provocations are potential political land mines for Obama. According to a February 2009 Greenberg, Quinlan and Rosner poll, the Democrats’ liabilities on national security remain. Republicans continue to hold a 15-point advantage on national security -- the only major policy issue on which they are clearly favored. The poll also showed that Democrats are seen as too hesitant to use force and not “tough” enough, particularly when it comes to terrorism. If the United States is hit by another terrorist attack, it’s not difficult to imagine Republicans using the Obama administration’s anti-terror policies as a political cudgel against it.

But if the Obama administration is concerned, it’s not showing it. Democrats have an opportunity to break free from the stereotypes that have defined the party for four decades. The political inclination might be to worry about the optics first and the policy second. While some might argue that the president’s Cabinet choices (Robert Gates at the Defense Department, retired Marine Gen. Jim Jones at the National Security Council, etc.) signaled such a move, the policy decisions have seemingly been far more focused on getting it right than on looking tough.

Indeed, Obama’s approach to national security shows a more proximate understanding of the realistic limitations of U.S. power than any in recent memory. While this may not be the most politically advantageous course, it’s a move that signals a new and long overdue maturity in U.S. foreign policy.