Are there any foreign policy implications of a special election?

Posted By Daniel W. Drezner Tuesday, January 19, 2010 - 2:23 PM Share

Everyone inside the Beltway is preparing their 500 words on what the results in the Massachusetts special Senate election will mean for Barack Obama's domestic policy agenda. It's worth speculating for a moment, however, about the implications of this election for Obama's foreign policy agenda. What would a Republican victory signal to the rest of the world? How would the rest of the world's policymakers react?

The first and simplest answer would be that there would be no effect. It's just a single Senate election. Furthermore, one could argue that, on foreign policy, GOP hopeful Scott Brown is actually closer to Barack Obama than Martha Coakley. Brown supports Obama's Afghanistan plan -- Coakley opposes it. This election hasn't really been about foreign policy. Surely, then, a GOP upset wouldn't have much impact on the realm of international relations.

Not so fast, however. The election will also be interpreted as a signal of Obama's domestic political strength. Unless the numbers are way off, the Republicans will do much better tonight than anyone expected even two weeks ago. Foreign leaders -- particularly those from countries not terribly well-schooled in electoral politics -- will undoubtedly interpret that as a sign of:

1) Obama's domestic weakness; and

2) The depths of populist outrage in the United States -- populist outrage that could bleed over into increased protectionism, isolationism, or "kill them all and let God sort them out" provocation on the foreign policy front.

Soooo..... how they respond to this information depends on many factors. If they prefer Obama and his foreign policies to the GOP (cough, Europe, cough), then they might prove to be more accommodating to U.S. positions. If they like the results from a United States foreign policy that is more hawkish (cough, Iran and Venezuela, cough), then they might amp up their belligerence to make Obama look weak and hamstrung.

The one sure effect of the election is that it will throw a monkey wrench into international negotiations that require legislative approval. Unless Obama can secure bipartisan support for, say, a replacement to Start II, other countries' negotiators are going to wonder why they should bother with the transaction costs of negotiation.

Am I missing anything?

EXPLORE:U.S. FOREIGN POLICY, CONGRESS, OBAMA, TWO-LEVEL GAMES, UNITED STATES

(6)

HIDE COMMENTS LOGIN OR REGISTER REPORT ABUSE

GRANT

3:19 PM ET

January 19, 2010

Not mentioned is the need for

Not mentioned is the need for Obama to have a victory. I believe this was mentioned last year on this site, but it bears repeating. Obama needs to pick a fight and win it, and health care seems like the best chance he's got (barring some sudden shift in Afghanistan's fortunes that the media hasn't detected yet). However, with the nature of the issue his greatest chance for victory is also his greatest chance for defeat.

BLUE13326

3:27 PM ET

January 19, 2010

Sounds like you're trying to

Sounds like you're trying to talk yourself into voting for Coakley.

Regardless, you're vastly overstating the importance of this; it's just another signpost of a presidency that has been weak and misguided from the beginning, and foreign leaders have already picked up on this.

MICHAELWELL

4:10 PM ET

January 19, 2010

Obama & Mass election

It won´t matter who´s going to win tonight; either demo or rep politics toward Venezuela won´t change as it is nowdays: confrontation though has been recently an approach to a respectfully dialogue.

APARETS

8:44 PM ET

January 19, 2010

hmmm...

well, coakley losing the election may also help obama's bargaining position in certain issue areas. the election may signal weakening domestic support for the president to foreign negotiators (even though we know that not much can be inferred from one special election in american politics). obama can play up the potential for higher domestic audience costs and his hands being tied by republicans if he doesn't get his way to boost his bargaining position and thus gain a greater share of the surplus during negotiations. so losing the election may in fact be beneficial to certain negotiations in certain issue areas.

ZATHRAS

4:31 AM ET

January 20, 2010

Dan is overthinking this.

Dan is overthinking this. The Massachusetts election was decided on the state of the economy and domestic political issues, and will have no foreign policy consequences. Even the consideration of international agreements by the Senate is not made appreciably more difficult by the GOP win in Massachusetts than it was anyway.

MBOURQUE

4:53 AM ET

January 21, 2010

It changes expectations and who one should be seeing for lunch.

International coverage of U.S. political process is getting more sophisticated. Of course its not potential negotiating parties that need to be made aware of the landscape, but the people back in their homes who are pressuring them.

In December at Copenhagen it had to be explained to far too much of the world that a binding agreement would ultimately require (among many things, including unicorns) the consent of the Senator from West Virginia.

Keeping with that example, its already become clear for us up here in the Canadian wilderness that decisions that could effect trade from that file may be made by the EPA rather than congress.

Generally, if you lower your expectations to executive orders and regulatory actions it actually streamlines the process. Only one set of Washington consultants need be retained.