Foreign Policy is Important even in an Economy Election
November 15, 2011 No Comments
Jamie Davidson
Class of 2015
College of Arts and Science
Last Saturday’s Republican debate devoted solely to foreign policy may not have produced any SNL worthy gaffes but it did seek to put focus on foreign policy issues that have eluded the spotlight this campaign season. Since polling shows that economic issues are more important to Americans, they have been front and center in this campaign, even in a year in which President Obama has run up an impressive string of foreign policy accomplishments. Back in December, he got Congress to pass a new START nuclear arms reduction treaty with Russia. Then, of course, in May President Obama announced that he ordered a mission that killed Osama bin Laden. Four months later, a U.S. drone strike took out another key Al-Qaeda leader, Anwar al-Awlaki. Al-Awlaki is only one of several Al-Qaeda leaders to be killed by the drone program which President Obama ramped up upon taking office. On October 20th, Muammar Gaddafi was killed in Libya, marking a successful conclusion for the NATO effort there. The next day, President Obama announced that all American troops in Iraq will be home by the end of the year, following the timeline left by the Bush administration and fulfilling a campaign promise that was integral to his 2008 campaign.
And yet, after each accomplishment, the media comes to the same conclusion: all these foreign policy successes won’t affect a 2012 election that will be dominated by the economy. This analysis is not off-base. As mentioned earlier, poll after poll will tell you the most important issue by far for American voters is the economy and so it is logical to conclude that voters will chose the candidate who they believe is best suited to improve the economy. The question then becomes is this a good thing? Is it good for voters to base their selection for President solely on the most pressing issue of the time when history shows that a President ushered in on one issue can end up facing far different issues during their time in office?
Back in 1976, a public disgusted by the corruption of Watergate and angry with President Ford’s pardon of Richard Nixon booted out Ford in favor of newcomer Jimmy Carter. Carter, the former Georgia governor, had seemingly come out of nowhere to capture the Democratic Party’s nomination and cast himself as the ultimate Washington outsider. The American people hoped that Carter would bring greater trust and honesty to a government that was lacking both. During his four years in office however, President Carter faced an unprecedented number of domestic and foreign policy challenges that had little to do with government transparency. In addition, Carter’s outsider approach miffed critical Congressional partners like House Speaker Tipp O’Neil reducing Carter’s chances of getting things done. Carter was unable to handle the combined difficulties of high inflation, the Iranian hostage crisis and hostile relations with the Soviets following their invasion of Afghanistan and he went on to lose the 1980 election to Ronald Reagan. If voters in 1976 had known of the extraordinary challenges the country would face in the next four years, they may have sought out a more experienced leader, especially in foreign policy matters.
The 2000 election shares many similarities to the 1976 election. George W. Bush ran on a promise to “restore honor and dignity to the White House.” was tapping into public anger over the Monica Lewinsky scandal in the same way that Carter tapped into anger over Watergate. After 9/11, Bush’s presidency was defined by his foreign policy as he pursued the war on terror and war in Iraq. In the second term of his presidency, however, the public disapproved of Bush’s handling of the war in Iraq so much that democrats made dramatic gains in the 2006 and 2008 elections. In both the 1976 and 2000 elections, voters chose candidates that were viewed as best able to solve the most pressing issues at the time, lack of trust and lack of “honor and dignity” respectively, but both Presidents Carter and Bush faced drastically different challenges, especially in the foreign policy realm and Americans ended up strongly disapproving of their performances. The lesson to be drawn for the 2012 race, then, is that foreign policy will be an important part, perhaps the most important part (Think: Iran, Terrorism, China…etc), of the President’s agenda in the next four years and that voters should choose accordingly.
Election 2012, News