Why Democratic candidates must speak on foreign policy
WASHINGTON >> Why aren’t Democratic presidential candidates talking more about foreign policy?
Are they being shrewd in playing down a divisive concern that is not at the front of voters’ minds, or are they missing an opportunity? Both.
A new Center for American Progress study finds that when Americans look at the world, they think primarily about how their government can keep them safe and bolster their economic opportunities.
The progressive group’s survey “provides overwhelming evidence that American voters want the United States to be ‘strong at home’ first and foremost to help it compete in the world.” They “express a clear desire for more investment in U.S. infrastructure, health care and education — and less of an exclusive focus on military and defense spending — as part of a revamped foreign policy approach that gets America ready to compete with other countries.”
The survey also found foreign policy is a genuine vulnerability for President Trump. A large majority (57 percent to 40 percent) disapproved of his handling of foreign policy and 62 percent said “Under President Trump, America is losing respect around the world and alienating historic allies.”
John Halpin, a CAP senior fellow and lead author of the study, pointed out a paradox: Most Americans dislike Trump’s approach, but his distance from the old foreign policy establishment is a political asset.
“The language and policies of the foreign policy expert community simply don’t work with many voters,” Halpin said in an interview. “People are confused by abstract calls to defend the liberal international order or fight authoritarianism. The lack of clarity about goals and visions on the centerleft opens the door for Trump-like nationalism to take hold, even though the president himself is unpopular.”
One of the study’s striking innovations defines how different groups of Americans view foreign policy.
Using 20 survey questions to capture voters’ priorities and values, the researchers found the largest group, 33 percent of voters, could be called “Trump Nationalists.” They prioritized military spending, fighting terrorism, focusing on concerns at home and opposing U.S. role as global policeman.
Close behind were the “Global Activists” at 28 percent. They emphasized working with allies on climate change, disease, poverty, inequality and equal rights and stressed the importance of international institutions.
The smallest group reflected the attitudes of those who tend to dominate mainstream foreign policy debates. “Traditional Internationalists” (18 percent) focused on the U.S.’ duty to engage in world affairs, benefits of trade and alliances, importance of defending democratic values, and the obligation to use force in response to threats. (The “Foreign Policy Disengaged,” at 21 percent, had few intense views.)
Taken together, the Activists and the Internationalists outnumber the Nationalists by a margin of nearly
3 to 2. But the fissures between advocates of newer and older forms of global engagement show how hard creating a consensus against Trumpism could be. A CAP analysis demonstrated a bipartisan foreign policy isn’t in the cards. Among Democrats, 48 percent are Global Activists and 10 percent are Trump Nationalists. Among Republicans, 61 percent are Nationalists, and only 7 percent are Activists. Internationalists account for roughly a fifth of each party.
Of the 2020 Democratic candidates, Sens. Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders have made substantial efforts to link progressive economics with opposition to authoritarianism and kleptocracy abroad. Halpin argues there’s room for other contenders to elaborate a “strong at home, strong in the world” vision.
But there will be powerful incentives for them to avoid aggravating Democratic foreign policy rifts. And traditional internationalists face enormous challenges in selling concepts they hold dear to an electorate weary of war and anxious about an increasingly competitive world.