Robert Saldin has written a wonderfully concise piece discussing the importance of foreign policy in presidential elections in his contribution to The Forum. He has noted the ways in which foreign policy has played a role in a number of congressional and presidential election seasons over the past century, and he has made a strong case that Iraq was central to producing the Democratic and Republican nominees in 2008. If we count trade as a foreign policy issue, global affairs takes on even greater significance in our national elections.
I would add to Saldin’s excellent discussion that even if economic issues carry the day, nominees have to convince the public that they meet a minimum threshold for serving as commander-in-chief. That’s why even in 1992, an election won on “the economy, stupid,” Bill Clinton gave foreign policy speeches. And it is something Barack Obama clearly understood was important in 2008.
In addition to what Saldin has nicely done, it’s worth also remembering that not only do foreign affairs have an impact on elections, but elections are important for foreign affairs. I don’t mean this simply in the usual sense that a different winner might have conducted foreign policy differently (and I’m sure we can have lengthy conversation on Al Gore and Iraq), but how candidates lay the groundwork for how they will govern. Bill Clinton signaled throughout 1991-92 that free trade and democracy promotion would emerge as issues important to his presidency, and the seeds of what he did during his eight years in office were planted during the campaign, even if he himself wasn’t planning on becoming a foreign policy president.
What we saw in 2008 will be important going forward: a Democrat with no foreign policy or military experience was unafraid to go toe-to-toe with a war hero. We should expect to see an Obama administration try to position the Democratic Party as a national security party for the first time in decades. Appointing General James Jones as national security adviser, keeping Robert Gates on as secretary of defense, and putting General Eric Shinseki in charge of Veteran Affairs will help lay the ground work for this strategy. Hillary Clinton developed a good relationship with the military through her work on Armed Services. Michelle Obama has declared that assisting military families will be a major priority for her. National security Democrats who populated institutions such as the Center for a New American Security will take leading positions in the new administration. These are Democrats who want to shed the party’s image as anti-military and soft on national security, and the debacles of the past eight years give them the opportunity to do so.
Republicans tried to paint Democrats in 2008 as untrustworthy on national security as they have been doing in national elections since Vietnam. It didn’t get John McCain the votes he needed, not because foreign policy wasn’t important, but because the charge just didn’t stick. Watch for Obama to do all sorts of things to ensure that this Republican ploy has no better chance of succeeding next time.
{ 1 comment }
Professor Goldgeier states that ‘elections are important for foreign affairs’ because what candidates espouse on the campaign trail ‘sows the seeds’ for what actions they take once in office. I would argue that this is true only under some conditions. For example, it is often cited that George W. (and key members of his administration) vehemently articulated disdain for nation-building operations while on the campaign trail. But rather than follow through with this once in office, he did just the opposite and immersed the US in two of the largest and most costly nation-building missions in US history.
While extraordinary situations provoked the military campaign in Afghanistan, there is simply no overwhelming strategic counterterrorism reason why Bush had to commit to an extensive nation-building program there—nation-building is not exactly a winning or sufficient counterterrorism strategy (not only do many of today’s terrorists come from wealthy and stable countries, but without extending effective authority into all weak or unstable areas around the globe—which is an impossible task—terrorists will simply pack up and move to the next weak or failed state, as they have already done in Afghanistan by simply moving into unstable areas of Pakistan. So unless nation-building occurs on a global scale, it is hardly a robust counterterrorism strategy. I should note that just because nation-building is not a sufficient counterterrorism strategy, it is not to say it is not a worthwhile and important undertaking for other reasons, although Bush would not have agreed with this statement while he was on the campaign trail.)
So, if we assume the extensive nation-building operation in Afghanistan is not required for US counterterrorism, the question becomes why are we there? Why did the Bush Administration undertake this operation that so clearly went against the preferences they stated prior to taking office? The only answers to this question is that either Bush was lying on the campaign trail or, simply, that US presidents face important domestic and international pressures about acceptable international behavior, which forces them to act in specific ways that may counter their personal preferences. In other words, Presidents sow the seeds of their actions once in office while on the campaign trail only to a certain extent and on certain issues. Presidential power is deeply constrained and shaped by domestic and international norms of how great powers operate in the world. If this argument is accurate, then Obama will need to consider how his administration can shape the norms and standards of international behavior in a way that helps enable him to achieve his foreign policy goals. Obama’s team has already proven apt at shaping and framing issues to Obama’s benefit domestically; the question now is can they do this internationally.
Hope this wasn’t too long! I am so happy to see the monkey cage bringing in so many interesting foreign policy discussions lately!
Comments on this entry are closed.