By Esther Brimmer
House Speaker Tip O’Neill’s oft-quoted assertion that “all politics is local might seem to rule out foreign policy from consideration in electoral politics. However, foreign policy can provide the context for deciding a national election. The general public usually does not follow the nuances of foreign policy debates, but voters may consider certain basic questions. Voters want to be sure that prospective leaders can handle the most fundamental aspects of national security. In presidential systems, voters want to know if a particular candidate can serve as commander-in-chief. In parliamentary systems, voters consider whether the party and its leaders can address these concerns. Electorates often evaluate candidates based on three key questions: - Is the nation at war? If yes, how would the candidates resolve the conflict?
- Is there an overarching international threat? If yes, how would the candidates address it?
- Is there a major international opportunity? If yes, how would the candidates seize it?
The most important question concerns whether the nation is at war. If the country is in a war or has troops deployed in a major conflict, the conduct of the conflict is relevant to voters. They want to know that the leader can be trusted with the lives of the nation’s sons and daughters in uniform. Voters weigh candidates according to how well they think each potential leader would manage and conclude the conflict.
If a country is at war within its own borders or has troops fighting abroad, this fact automatically becomes a leading issue because it is a life-or-death concern. Yet voters’ views vary, depending on whether the war is seen as directly related to the leader’s ability to defend the nation or whether it is a distant colonial-style conflict. Nineteenth-century American voters would have had a different view of President Abraham Lincoln’s conduct of the Civil War, which directly threatened the capital city, than of his successors’ prosecution of wars against American Indians in the West.
When the scale of violence mounts, leaders are increasingly pressed to explain the national interest in fighting. Voters understand the need to respond to a direct attack. Wars to preserve international order or relieve humanitarian suffering enjoy less durable support. Even though foreign affairs specialists can make cogent cases for military engagement in humanitarian and peacekeeping operations, publics are often skeptical. Elected leaders often downplay involvement in such operations. Voters in Wartime
The fundamental question for the 2008 U.S. presidential election is: Will voters see the war in Iraq as an integral part of a fight vital to national security or as a bloody, far-away entanglement that is tangential—or even detrimental—to the safety of the nation?
In 2004, President George W. Bush painted the conflict in Iraq as part of his “war on terrorism.” By using the phrase, “war on terror,” Bush was able to cast both his antiterrorism actions and the invasion of Iraq as wars vital to national security. By 2007, most Democratic candidates characterized this conflict as detrimental to national security. The question for the voter is: How would a candidate define and complete the country’s objectives in the war?
In 2008, American voters will assess presidential candidates according to their plans for U.S. forces in Iraq and Afghanistan. Some candidates have sought to distinguish themselves on this crucial point. Arizona Senator John S. McCain has stressed his support for continued American operations in Iraq, while Illinois Senator Barack Obama has highlighted the fact that he opposed the war in Iraq from the very beginning.
Ironically, the war analogy that played well politically for the Bush administration at home fared badly internationally. The invasion of Iraq was deeply unpopular in Europe. Voters in Europe even question the need for their national forces to be in the NATO operation in Afghanistan. For many European voters, the “war on terrorism” is the Bush administration’s campaign and a misuse of the powerful word “war.” Even in the Netherlands, a pillar of the “Atlanticist” camp in Europe, national leaders may be as concerned with fraying cohesion within NATO as with threats emanating from Afghanistan.
One of the most dramatic recent examples of the impact of international affairs on foreign policy comes from Spain. On March 11, 2004, Spain suffered a terrible terrorist attack on a major train station in Madrid during rush hour. On March 14, the party of Prime Minister José María Aznar was defeated in previously scheduled elections by the leader of the socialist party, José Luis Rodríguez Zapatero. Zapatero had pledged to remove Spanish troops from Iraq. Pundits opined that Aznar’s support for the unpopular war in Iraq had cost him the election. Spanish voters feared that involvement in Iraq had made them the targets of radical Islamist terrorists. Yet the situation was even more complex. The Aznar government claimed Basque separatist ETA (Basque Homeland and Freedom) agents had caused the attack, even after radical Islamist suspects had been arrested. If Basque separatists were responsible, then the attack could be framed as a domestic issue that would help the conservative government. Implicating an Islamist group was seen to raise the specter of blowback from an unpopular foreign policy. Instead of being calmed, voters were incensed, believing they had been misled.
In this case, both questions were relevant. Spain had troops abroad in an unpopular war in Iraq. Voters wanted their forces to leave Iraq. When the terrorist attack occurred, the government initially characterized it as a domestic issue. Instead, voters blamed the sitting government for mismanaging an international challenge. Voters did not have confidence that the Aznar government would address the threat adequately. In many voters’ minds, involvement in Iraq made Spain a target. Indeed, the question of whether involvement in Iraq makes Europeans more vulnerable is hotly contested in many European countries.
The Iraq War was so unpopular in the United Kingdom that, before winning an historic third term, Prime Minister Tony Blair had to announce he would stand down during that term. Blair’s strong support for Bush’s policies meant voters no longer trusted him to manage the United Kingdom’s presence in Iraq. He had lost voters on the first question. In effect, he said: Elect my party again even though you do not want me to head it. Other International Threats
If there is no large-scale war, the second question becomes salient. Voters consider whether there is an important international threat. During the Cold War, candidates could refer to the Soviet Union. In the 2008 election, some voters may put climate change in this category, but question one—war—tends to overshadow it. Question two also may encompass international economic challenges such as trade imbalances, perceived job losses from outsourcing and responding to other pressures of globalization.
One of the most interesting twists regarding the impact of foreign affairs on elections is the issue of immigration. Usually immigration is a domestic policy issue. However, large-scale movements of people, whether legal or illegal, have made the issue more sensitive. Leaders are aware that poor conditions in home countries can push out emigrants, while relative prosperity in recipient countries can pull in immigrants. Relations with the home countries can play into voters’ assessments of candidates. Does the candidate have a way to manage the flow of immigrants?
The movement of people can be viewed as a security issue. In the 1992 election, candidate Bill Clinton criticized then-incumbent George H.W. Bush’s policies toward Haitian refugees. Clinton was aware of the human rights abuses occurring under the regime of Raoul Cédras. Yet for some American voters, his more lenient attitude toward those fleeing oppression was an invitation to Haitians trying to escape to Florida, all too often in leaky vessels. The candidate’s words became a factor in voters’ evaluation of his ability to address question two, an international threat.
In the 2007 French presidential election, Nicolas Sarkozy highlighted his tough, law-and-order image. His stance on integration of immigrant families made him unpopular in the banlieues on the outskirts of the cities. During his campaign he promoted a Mediterranean Union as an alternative to Turkish membership in the European Union and as a vehicle for addressing immigration across that sea. As part of his policy on immigration at home, he needed to produce a foreign policy initiative that would appear to solve the causes of migration by improving domestic economic conditions. He reiterated the idea after his election. Observers await further development of the concept. Looking for Leaders
The third question may be the most difficult. Can candidates recognize a major international opportunity? It is often easier to focus on threats. Yet finding potential opportunities is also a mark of leadership. Identifying an opportunity could provide candidates a way to distinguish themselves. The more demanding voter looks to the candidate for a vision of how to seize these opportunities to enhance America’s role in the world. It is in this area of foreign policy that candidates may best be able to transcend the negative campaigning so distasteful to voters while enhancing their visibility.
As international affairs specialists, we may lament the fact that voters often do not focus on the nuances of foreign policy. Yet the withering light of the political campaign may wilt beneficial but controversial international action. In their election seasons, neither American nor European politicians are likely to highlight NATO support for the African Union in Darfur, even though many voters are appalled by the humanitarian catastrophe unfolding there.
Once voters are satisfied that candidates can address the conflict if the nation is at war or manage another international threat, they may turn to other issues. Elections tend to simplify security into traditional definitions of national security and the conduct of conflict. Yet candidates may exert real leadership by having a wider understanding of security that enables them to see opportunities dawning on the horizon.
Esther Brimmer is a professorial lecturer, deputy director and director of research for the Center for Transatlantic Relations at SAIS and a Foreign Policy Institute Fellow. |
