-
The Cable
Rand Paul: You’re Arming al Qaeda’s Allies
-
War of Ideas
No, 3-D Printing Won’t End Hunger
-
Passport
Why Does the U.S. Get All the Tornadoes?
Posted By Daniel W. Drezner
Tuesday, September 13, 2011 - 11:56 AM
Share
As the economy has been weakening, the odds of the GOP producing the president of the United States in 2013 has been increasing, which means I've been watching the debates, including last night's CNN Tea Party debate.
Last night's debate followed the same pattern as the other ones I've seen -- the ratio of domestic policy to foreign policy questions was about 80:20 -- maybe 70:30 if one considers immigration to be a foreign-policy question. International political economy is barely addressed at all, except in glancing references to China's ownership of U.S. debt. My Twitter feed has been overflowing with laments like this one during all of the debates.
Now, as a Foreign Policy Wonk in Good Standing, you might imagine that I'm pretty upset about this. International relations is half the job of being POTUS, after all, so one would expect half the debate time to be devoted to it. Goodness knows, the performance of some of the GOP candidates has given me serious pause about their ability to execute even a semi-competent foreign policy.
In truth, however, I can't get all that worked up about it, for two reasons. The first is that these debates are an attempt to influence voters -- and, to repeat a theme, the overwhelming majority of voters do not care about foreign affairs. This has been true as a general rule, even during wartime, and is even truer during a down economy. It should be noted that social policy questions have also been on the margins during these debates because this election is about the economy, the economy, and the economy. Foreign-policy wonks will begrudge the lack of globotalk -- that's what we do. I'm not going to begrudge the American people getting more time to hear candidates talk about issues that they think are the most important, however.
The second reason -- and this is more informed speculation than a statement of fact -- is that foreign-policy promises made during campaigns don't matter as much for governing as domestic policy promises. As Ron Paul reminded people last night, George W. Bush won the presidency in 2000 on a platform of "no authority in the Constitution to be the policeman of the world, and no nation-building." I think it's safe to say that's not how he ran his foreign policy.
Similarly, think back to Barack Obama's foreign-policy pledges during the 2008 primary season. He had two highlights. The first was a statement that he'd be happy to sit down without conditions and meet with Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. That hasn't happened despite Ahmadinejad's repeated entreaties for an open debate. Obama's other highlight came when he and Hillary Clinton sparred over who would renegotiate NAFTA first. Again … that hasn't happened (and thank goodness for that).
I could go on -- Bill Clinton reversed his campaign pledge to let in Haitian refugees before he even took office. You get the point, however. Stepping back, it's hard to think of any significant foreign-policy campaign promises made in the modern era that actually mattered. I hereby challenge the commenters -- and BA and MA students desperately in search of a thesis -- to provide counterexamples.
To be clear, I'm not saying that foreign-policy issues are completely irrelevant. The contrast between Obama and Hillary Clinton on Iraq clearly affected the 2008 primary, for example. I'm hypothesizing that pronouncements about future foreign policy don't seem to matter. I suspect that this is for two reasons. First, as previously noted, voters don't care about these pledges all that much. Second, the world keeps changing, and so any new president needs to adapt to new circumstances.
In contrast, domestic policy promises made during campaigns do matter. Signal statements -- Obama on health care, Bush 43 on tax cuts -- mattered in the execution of policy. The most famous counterexample -- Bush 41 going back on his no-new-tax pledge -- proves the rule, as it cost him dearly. So what candidates say during these portions of the debates matters more.
Just to be clear, these are hypotheses and not conclusions. A cursory scan of the literature didn't turn up anything, but I'm betting someone has studied this question. I'm not sure I'm right here, and I'd welcome pushback or confirmation in the comments.
What do you think?
2 major 2008 FP campaign promises that mattered:
Obama, in contrast to McCain, promised to end the war in Iraq, which he called a distraction from real security.
Second, and despite what some Democrats apparently heard when listening to him, Obama also promised to escalate the war in Afghanistan and re-prioritize threats from al Qaeda and the Taliban.
Would Obama have suffered any real political blowback from reversing course on Afghanistan in 2009? Sure, he'd get flack from the GOP, but the American public's support for the war in Afghanistan has cratered.
I think Dan underestimates the importance of Presidential candidates being familiar with foreign affairs before they start running.
Clinton was not. Obama was not. George W. Bush was lamentably ignorant. This fact influenced the reliability of their respective campaign promises.
I completely agree that foreign policy knowledge and familiarity is important, which is why I'm paying attention to the debates. That is different from making foreign policy pledges, however.
I don't see real disagreement here
It's been so long since Americans elected as President anyone sophisticated about foreign affairs I'm not sure we would recognize what such a person sounded like. I just think candidates making pledges about subjects they don't understand at all should be assumed to have made empty promises. If they have domestic constituencies demanding the pledges, that's a different situation.
I think all GOP candidates have made an implicit fp promise...
America will apologize for nothing. Ever. Commencing with their election America and the world will enjoy the bliss of an 8 year, sustained jingogasm. I can't wait.
the worst part will be the notion on blank cheque
If a GOP candidate will be elected, he/she will treat fp like Obama did: trying to completely re-write it, ignoring the actual facts. Obama demanded a blank cheque to be handed to him by the world, because "he can", because he's a "Democrat" and because he's no Bush. The republicans will do the same, ignoring the policies pursued by their predecessors, taking a 180 degree turn wherever they can just to take a swipe on Obama or the Dems. This is no way to lead a nation.
A response, a comment and an example
Rapay, I think the larger point on Obama is he promised a foreign policy that would be a significant departure from Bush. The Iraq draw down followed the same path of the Bush SOFA, thus no major change. The Afghan escalation was the same policy Bush promised asthe Iraq draw down would happen. Don't forget the promise on Gitmo.
To almost all the other comments...lets stay on topic. another AIPAC rant and general take on why you dislike GOP foreign policy is way off topic here. Plenty of room over at Steve Walt's place for that.
Finally an example of a modern president that governed pretty darn close to the majority of his foreign policy campaign rhetoric: Reagan. Love him or hate him there were no big surprises in the first term there.
Obama and Clinton have now made an argument for not toppling dictators, religious discrimination. They said, according to the Washington Post, that by toppling murderous, oppressive, deviant dictators like Kaddafi and Mubarak, the people will be introduced to religious intolerance.; a claim that I find absolutely baseless and pure propaganda. It is also an excuse to not get involved in Syria, Lebanon, or Yemen while there is Iranian supported slaughter going on daily.
http://msmignoresit.blogspot.com/2011/09/threats-to-religious-freedom-in-post.html
To strengthen your argument, you can add that there is a greater chance that Presidents running for reelection will keep their foreign policy pledges - which is interesting considering they could break these pledges with little repercussion.
1. Bush 43's foreign policy did not change during his second term from the platform he ran on in 2004.
2. After Clinton's failed Somalia intervention, his foreign policy was fairly similar in both terms
3. Reagan - although some revisionism is trying to say Reagan changed his foreign policy in his second term, the spirit of "negotiating from a position of strength" was similar in the first and second terms.
4. Not aware of any pledges broken by Eisenhower in his second term but my knowledge of this time period is limited.
Why is this the case? Because Presidents generally don't know what they actually believe in terms of foreign affairs until they get into power and see what works.
Richard Nixon’s 1968 campaign’s “secret” plan sloganized that "new leadership will end the war" in Vietnam. Is 43 years ago considered modern? This certainly had an impact on his mandate election results.
Both parties need to stop the militaristic foreign policy.
Our democracy and civilian control of the military is being dangerous harmed by both parties dangerous embrace of a militaristic foreign policy, endless 'wars' and assorted military adventures abroad. Bush and the entire Republican Party was deeply wrong and acted in violation of the Constitution as he claimed military powers of a dictator...Obama should be condemned because he has further expanded and institutionalized many, if not all, of Bush's undemocratic self-proclaimed, unconstitutional war, military and counter-terrorism powers.
The Republican Party sells itself as the party of small-government but this is a lie...they've long supported an all powerful presidency that violates the Constitution and has military powers of a dictator.
The institution of the military, its warmongering generals, its desire for prestige, a mission and indeed empire and its need for a purpose as well as an enemy after the demise of the Soviet Union is as responsible as any other actor for the serious damage endless, undeclared, undemocratic war has caused our democracy. The power of the military in our country needs to be confronted if our democracy is not going to be further damaged...the undemocratic power of the military cannot be fed with dubious, illogical claims from unthinking individuals that in waging endless, highly questionable pseudo-wars the military is "defending our freedom".
Defending freedom requires defending the elements of democracy, the Constitution, when, why and for how long war is waged and keeping powerful, undemocratic institutions like the military in check.
"I will go to Korea."
With the singular exception of Jon Huntsman, the Republican field of candidates are empty jugs who believe the label is more important than content.
That's what I think.
Your column said as much with far more column inches. But then I'm not getting paid.
Daniel W. Drezner is professor of international politics at the Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy at Tufts University.
Read More
May/June 2013
-
Profile
-
FP Power Map
-
Think Again
Follow us on Twitter | Visit us on Facebook | Follow us on RSS | Subscribe to Foreign Policy
About FP | Meet the Staff | Foreign Editions | Reprint Permissions | Advertising | Writers’ Guidelines | Press Room | Work at FP
Services:Subscription Services | Academic Program | FP Archive | Reprint Permissions | FP Reports and Merchandise | Special Reports | Buy Back Issues
Privacy Policy | Disclaimer | Contact Us
11 DUPONT CIRCLE NW, SUITE 600 | WASHINGTON, DC 20036 | Phone: 202-728-7300 | Fax: 202-728-7342
FOREIGN POLICY is published by the FP Group, a division of The Washington Post Company
All contents ©2013 The Foreign Policy Group, LLC. All rights reserved.
(14)
HIDE COMMENTS LOGIN OR REGISTER REPORT ABUSE