Foreign Policy Takes a Back Seat, as New Voters Focus on Change at Home
This year’s US Presidential election is an important one. Both sides believe that a lot is at stake, and both sides are being confronted by a populist rebellion. The dynamics of the election are unpredictable, and pundits across the spectrum are at a loss to understand the failure of their typical predictive methods. Voters are equally conflicted, which is reflected by the staggering primary participation numbers and results that cross traditionally inviolable demographic lines. Issues voters seem to have been replaced with personality voters.
Democrats, who have long felt that Secretary Clinton is the de facto nominee, struggle to understand how a Democratic Socialist (a title that would have sunk any candidate in elections past) is creating a schism in the party. Republicans, who historically have always moderated towards “electability,” are similarly perplexed as to how a brash, offensive, and ideologically inconsistent billionaire can hijack their party. The answer for both parties is the engagement of historically inactive voting blocks. In many cases, the people participating in the primaries are not even registered to the parties they vote for. While US voter participation rates are typically low, primary voter participation is usually anemic by comparison. And yet, in every primary to date, record turnout has been the big story.
But is this turnout good for the parties? That is the question no one can answer. As the popularity of Trump and Sanders bring in new voters, those same voters are often unwilling to accept the party’s candidates. This has led to one of the most baffling phenomena, the Trump-Sanders cross over voters. It seemed unthinkable that a billionaire and an avowed socialist would share a voting bloc, but polls show there is a cross over. It seems dangerous, then, for the parties that new, energized voters are also not loyal to their ideas or politicians.
And this dynamic increases uncertainty beyond the presidential race. Come November, one third of the Senate and the entire House will be up for re-election. Both parties hope that new voters will lead to down ballot success. But are their new voters reliable? Control over Congress will be essential either to promote or to block the next president’s agenda. Alternatively, if either party elects an establishment candidate, they risk alienating the outsider or revolutionary voters that might push them to congressional success.
So the question on everyone’s mind is the same: How do you appeal to the most voters without alienating other possible supporters? Much has been written about the role of anger in the election. And to be sure, many Americans are frustrated by the prolonged economic recession and a recovery that has not been as robust as the administration has advertised. The ideological distinction seems to be whether people blame the government (Republicans) or businesses (Democrats). This dichotomy seems to overshadow another important issue in the race.
International relations.
While international events have certainly elevated national security and foreign relations issues, economic issues have largely overshadowed them. The growth of ISIS is of tremendous concern, and yet, on the Republican side, it has not superseded economic concerns. On the Democratic side, the foreign policy issue has been largely ceded to former Secretary of State Clinton, with Senator Sanders paying only lip service to the issues. And yet, while people understand that terrorism, Russian antagonism and Chinese expansionism are important issues in US foreign policy, they do not seem to be particularly swayed by them in candidate choice. Particularly on the Republican side, past American involvement in international affairs is starting to be seen as a negative. The foreign policy of Bush has been largely abandoned. Even beyond the question of whether or not Iraq was a justified war, Republican front runners are advocating for a foreign policy bereft of American assertions of power or authority. For the GOP front runner, Donald Trump, to suggest that President Bush was responsible for the attacks of 9/11 demonstrates just how far Republican foreign policy has shifted. But it is also likely a byproduct of the new voters who do not necessarily share traditional conservative foreign policy values.
Regardless of the outcome of this election, American politics is likely facing a time of great upheaval. Neither party can select a candidate without upsetting a contrarian base, and both will struggle to maintain their identity through the process. While I do not think that either party will ultimately fracture, big questions will be raised about how well they reflect the values of traditionally inactive voters. And yet, without the conjoining of these voters into a single party, little change will occur to the system. Instead, both parties will work to incorporate new influences into their respective platforms to whatever degree they can without alienating their current voting base. Ultimately, a lot could change with this election. But a reduced American role in foreign and military policy seems to be a consistent theme among the four top candidates (Sanders, Clinton, Trump, Cruz). This may signal a long term shift in US strategic thinking. Yet, at the same time, it could also be emblematic of a surge of typically disengaged voters. If that is the case, then the shift in policy may be very much temporary.
Photo Credit: Flickr User Mark Levin
