-
The Perfect Storm
May 17, 2013 | 0 comments
-
The Perfect Storm: Feb. 2006
May 17, 2013 | 0 comments
-
A President Loses His Power
May 3, 2013 | 102 comments
-
Murder in the Old Dominion
April 2, 2013 | 136 comments
-
The Only Prophylactic Against Voter Fraud
March 16, 2013 | 0 comments
The Campaign Spectator
Beyond the Water’s Edge
Will foreign policy play a role in 2012?
(Page 2 of 2)
In the past, the Cold War gave American politics a binary focus. Anti-Soviet or not. Pro-military spending, or not. Millions of refugees from the captive nations of Eastern Europe, Cuba, Vietnam, and Cambodia brought a strong anti-Soviet strain into American politics. Chinese immigrants strengthened the “China lobby” that supported the Republic of China in Taiwan. Many immigrant groups were spokesmen and advocates for a Reaganite foreign policy.
With Reagan’s victory and the collapse of the Soviet Empire, this changed. What pressure groups surround a candidate for Congress or president dealing with defense and foreign policy? A politician must be aware and respond to the concerns of the Armenian and Greek lobbies (this usually means annoying Turkey). And politicians of both parties will listen to the Cuba and Israel lobbies. But after that a candidate finds himself without guardrails or guidance. Once elected, a president can support free trade with or shell the port cities of most nations with political impunity. Nixon went to China. Clinton passed NAFTA.
And on defense spending? There is no NRA concerning the really big artillery.
There is a veterans lobby. They wear the VFW hats, but they focus on spending for pensions and health care and rarely speak to choices on defense spending or foreign policy.
Liberals imagine a massive defense industry lobby, but mostly there are front groups that lobby for those weapons systems the Pentagon doesn’t want, such as the Crusader, or the second engine for the F-135.
On the left, the “peace movement” has never recovered from the introduction of the volunteer army. Antiwar rallies lost their vitality with the end of the draft. Who remembers Code Pink?
All this leaves politicians a great deal of running room on foreign policy and defense issues. Republicans and Democrats tend to support their guy, whatever decisions he makes. Reagan refused to get drawn into the civil war in Lebanon, even after the attack on our Marines. Bush 41 invaded Iraq and Republicans cheered and Democrats disapproved. Clinton involved the American military in Yugoslavia with Democrat support and Republicans warning against overreach and nation-building. George W. Bush campaigned on the promise of a more humble foreign policy and against nation-building. He then switched to interventionism and nation-building to the applause of Republicans and one Democrat, Senator Joe Lieberman. Obama campaigned against the occupations of Iraq and Afghanistan, yet extended Bush’s policies while increasing troop strength in Afghanistan without provoking pushback from his supporters who supposedly voted against Bush for initiating those same policies.
THERE ARE FEW DOMESTIC political pressures guiding or limiting most foreign policy decisions a president or Congress must make.
Unless.
Unless a war drags on to the point where independents turn against the policy. In 2006, Bush’s negatives were driven by a sense among independents (Republicans stayed loyal and Democrats were consistently opposed) that the wars and occupations of Iraq and Afghanistan were unending and unexplained. This shift in independents could already be seen in the 2004 presidential election. All those wonderful computer simulations that explain how a president should win big if there is no primary opposition and the economy is strong predicted a 58 percent Bush landslide. He eked by with 51 percent. Iraq had become a boat anchor on an otherwise successful presidency: when Republicans lost in 2006, unemployment was only 4.6 percent and the Dow Jones was at 12,000.
So is this Obama’s war now? Who will benefit if Afghanistan and Iraq are front and center?
Will Republicans vote for Obama if he continues Bush’s nation-building in Iraq and Afghanistan? Not likely. Will Democrats vote for the Republican to punish Obama for flip-flopping on his views on wars and occupations? Also unlikely. The swing voters who call themselves independents are the most likely to punish Obama for “more of the same” and doubly so if the unrest in northern Africa make the world look less safe and more hostile to American interests. One, two, many Irans? The charge of incompetence in foreign policy is most credible when wrapped around a set of failed economic policies. (Think Carter.) And the expense of wars is more deeply felt when added to a dramatic expansion of the welfare state. (Think LBJ.)
Whatever happens, once the election is over, the president in 2013 will find himself with more freedom of movement in this area. There is no NRA or AFL-CIO on foreign policy to ensure that the promises of the candidate become the policies of the next administration.
About the Author
Grover G. Norquist is the president of Americans for Tax Reform.
Paul Hilsenrath| 4.19.11 @ 6:56AM
Whenever I see something written by Mr. Norquist I always think, Fifth Column.
What's really behind what's been written, what's hiding behind the veil?
I guess its my knee jerk reaction, just like when I see Muslims on the street in their burqas the word traitor pops into my mind.
What treatment does Sharia proscribe to for the traitorous?
It must be a character deficiency in me.
Ya think?
Occam's Tool| 4.19.11 @ 1:02PM
Good point, Paul:
I was criticized for noting that Egypt was going to go Islamic following Mubarak, by some idiot, whose name I forget, stating that the rebels were "mostly secular."
Of course, that was crap. From the Daily Telegraph, within the last 7 days:
"Damien McElroy in Cairo, reporting for the UK Telegraph, has the following observations:
The Muslim Brotherhood, Egypt’s largest Islamic movement and the founder of Hamas, has set up a network of political parties around the country that eclipse the following of the middle class activists that overthrew the regime. On the extreme fringe of the Brotherhood, Islamic groups linked to al-Qeada are organising from the mosques to fill the vacuum left by the collapse of the dictatorship.
The military-led government already faces accusations that it is bowing to the surge in support for the Muslim movements, something that David Cameron warned of in February when he said Egyptian democracy would be strongly Islamic."
The same will be true in Libya, in Syria, in Saudi, etc. The only place I can think of where it might NOT be true is in the Iranian opposition, and they're the ones Obama's not listening to, because they might be friendly to the US!
Norquist is good on tax policy. On foreign policy, useless.
Alan Brooks| 4.19.11 @ 6:57AM
"Will foreign policy play a role in 2012?"
DUH! are you senile, Norquist?- of course foreign affairs will play a role.
Alan Brooks| 4.19.11 @ 7:02AM
"there is no National Right to Life Committee or Susan B. Anthony List focused on defense. There is no National Rifle Association or Americans for Tax Reform drawing clear lines in the foreign policy sand for candidates and voters."
Now why do you sup-hose dat iz, Sherlock? golly wolly doodle
Al Adab| 4.19.11 @ 3:29PM
Brooks has an idea here although Heritage, Cato and others serve partially as such. Maybe the Conservatives do need a foreign policy based think tank. Count me in.
JimH| 4.19.11 @ 8:37AM
Absent any immediate existential threat such as we had with the Soviet Union, most people’s priorities will focus in various ways on the economy. Polls show this, and it is to be expected. However the primary responsibility of the Federal government is to provide for the national defense. My concern when it comes to defense is that we are to focused too much on what beyond the waters and not enough on whats going on nearer at hand. I think whats going on in Mexico represents a bigger imediate danger than anything our troops in Europe are guarding us from. We need to secure and defend the border.
The Big E| 4.19.11 @ 11:27AM
I think you're exactly right about that. What's going on in northern Mexico is nothing less than a civil war between powerful criminal gangs over territory which been all bu abandoned by the so-called government. Inevitably, that violence will spread across the border, and potentially throughout the nation, following drug trafficking routes within the US itself. In another decade, maybe less, we may need those troops currently fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan back home fighting on our own soil.
loulou| 4.19.11 @ 9:48AM
Norquist had best stay away from foreign policy musings what with his link to the jihadis through his Arab wife.
Or maybe he would have had a soft spot for domestic jihadis even without the Muslim wife.
PCC| 4.19.11 @ 10:13AM
Please allow me to suggest humbly how to make foreign policy an important issue in the 2012 presidential campaign.
Simply produce campaign ad consisting of a film montage of President Obama bowing to the King of Saudi Arabia, the Emperor of Japan, the Queen of England and the President of China, amongst others, and close with "Vote Obama."
Occam's Tool| 4.19.11 @ 1:04PM
Good point PCC: Couple that with continuous loops of his laughing at the guy who was complaining that gas cost too much, and you have Obama neatly sunk on foreign policy.
Al Adab| 4.19.11 @ 11:49AM
While voters remain focused on the economy, you are correct we cannot overlook foreign policy. After all, our intereaction with the wider world through trade, and the shared politicaql perspective of others helps define our nation. What is lacking is a cherent world view and a policy that reflects that world. We must view world affairs through the lens of our national interest and not through either rosy "spread Democracy" or "Kumbaya". Neither will produce a stable world and that should be our goal.
Occam's Tool| 4.19.11 @ 1:05PM
As usual, Al Adab, correct,. You are consistently a joy to read.
Al Adab| 4.19.11 @ 3:27PM
Thanks again OT however, I see I need to pay more attention to my spellchecker as always. I find your comments enlightening as well.
Jordan| 4.19.11 @ 1:39PM
Good article, I always say that foreign policy has absolutely no bearing on a national election unless the President makes a total hash of that foreign policy (Bush in Iraq pre-surge and Carter's failed rescue of American hostages come to mind). Foreign policy can almost never actually benefit a politician but can lead to a politician's downfall, particularly in the post-Cold War era where America still does not have an all-encompassing enemy like the Soviet Union, but instead a bunch of minor non-state actors.
In the case of the next election, foreign policy will certainly not aid Obama's re-election chances, but if a GOP candidate can successfully reinvent himself to be opposed to nation-building or if Libya, Egypt, et al. Islamicize, or if the drug wars in Mexico get out of hand, then Obama could certainly have a "Carter re-election" where the economy is still in the doldrums and this is coupled with foreign policy issues that got completely out of hand.
Nite| 4.19.11 @ 10:01PM
Obama has no foreign policy except for several stupid and poorly conceived decisions and certainly do not make the country safe. In fact they make us more at risk. The worst Republican President has to be better than this guy who is severely in over his head.
9500LBS electric winch | 4.20.11 @ 4:17AM
I recently came accross your blog and have been reading along. I thought I would leave my first comment. I dont know what to say except that I have enjoyed reading. Nice blog. I will keep visiting this blog very often.
Johnny| 4.20.11 @ 6:38AM
The republicans need to take it to Obama on foreign policy. Some very good comments, I just hope that someone has learned that our current and last several years of that policy is a complete and utter failure. We have accomplished sending all of our manufacturing jobs overseas and allowed the rest of the world to much control over our country. Wow look at that the economy is linked to our foreign policy...imagine that.
Creative Recreation | 8.10.11 @ 10:08PM
is good