A foreign policy election? Careful what you wish for
Let's force a choice between Republicans and Democrats
If there's one thing George W. Bush and Barack Obama have in common, it's this: Both promised a much different foreign policy as candidates than they delivered as presidents.
Americans don't want to be fooled again. And they don't deserve to be, either. But it still might happen.
There's always a powerful incentive for Beltway experts to define a presidential election in advance. This year, there's an added temptation. To the surprise of many (but not all), President Obama's foreign policy has unraveled enough that it's now an open question as to who should be trusted to mend the fabric. Although Obama has managed to keep Russia and ISIS at bay, he has done very little to clarify the endgame for both those slow-motion crises and the unfolding situations in Iran, China, Venezuela, and elsewhere.
Subscribe to The Week
Escape your echo chamber. Get the facts behind the news, plus analysis from multiple perspectives.
Sign up for The Week's Free Newsletters
From our morning news briefing to a weekly Good News Newsletter, get the best of The Week delivered directly to your inbox.
From our morning news briefing to a weekly Good News Newsletter, get the best of The Week delivered directly to your inbox.
That's why, as Byron York has observed at the Washington Examiner, pundits, strategists, and reporters have been quick to foretell that Election 2016 is all about the foreign policy:
That's a broad ideological cross-section of influential mainstream opinion. But though every likely Republican candidate, from Jeb Bush to Chris Christie, is taking time to establish their foreign policy bona fides, no GOP candidate has used foreign policy to jump to the front of the pack. Barring some global calamity, it's likely that none will.
We might well face a foreign policy election — but one in which Americans discover there just isn't much of a choice between the two contending parties. Both Hillary Clinton and the leading mainstream GOP hawks share the same basic goal: to gain the confidence of the American people to conduct a more interventionist foreign policy than the American people want. As cynical as this may sound, it actually plays pretty honestly to our own ambivalent interests. We know the world is a mess. We'd rather not deal. But we know we'll have to, and we want experts we can trust to do so in the most judicious possible manner.
The more overlap between the parties, however, the harder it'll be to discern who to trust more. The choice could come down to intangibles, with voters crossing their fingers and hoping they can guess which candidate will do the least damage.
Fortunately, there's an alternative, unlikely as it may be. Perhaps Election '16 will be a full-on campaign in the foreign policy weeds, where the subtle but important differences between Democrats' neoliberal interventionism and Republicans' selective internationalism can be hashed out by candidates forced to be clear about their goals and expectations.
To get there, however, the American people will have to hold both parties to a standard that both Bush and Obama failed to meet over the past 16 years. Important as it is to stay flexible in a dramatically changing world, America has crossed the line from adaptivity to reactivity. The presidency could — and should — go to whomever convinces the electorate that they can be trusted: not just to regain the initiative, but to use it.
Create an account with the same email registered to your subscription to unlock access.
Sign up for Today's Best Articles in your inbox
A free daily email with the biggest news stories of the day – and the best features from TheWeek.com
James Poulos is a contributing editor at National Affairs and the author of The Art of Being Free, out January 17 from St. Martin's Press. He has written on freedom and the politics of the future for publications ranging from The Federalist to Foreign Policy and from Good to Vice. He fronts the band Night Years in Los Angeles, where he lives with his son.
-
'Make legal immigration a more plausible option'
Instant Opinion Opinion, comment and editorials of the day
By Harold Maass, The Week US Published
-
LA-to-Las Vegas high-speed rail line breaks ground
Speed Read The railway will be ready as soon as 2028
By Peter Weber, The Week US Published
-
Israel's military intelligence chief resigns
Speed Read Maj. Gen. Aharon Haliva is the first leader to quit for failing to prevent the Hamas attack in October
By Justin Klawans, The Week US Published
-
Arizona court reinstates 1864 abortion ban
Speed Read The law makes all abortions illegal in the state except to save the mother's life
By Rafi Schwartz, The Week US Published
-
Trump, billions richer, is selling Bibles
Speed Read The former president is hawking a $60 "God Bless the USA Bible"
By Peter Weber, The Week US Published
-
The debate about Biden's age and mental fitness
In Depth Some critics argue Biden is too old to run again. Does the argument have merit?
By Grayson Quay Published
-
How would a second Trump presidency affect Britain?
Today's Big Question Re-election of Republican frontrunner could threaten UK security, warns former head of secret service
By Harriet Marsden, The Week UK Published
-
'Rwanda plan is less a deterrent and more a bluff'
Instant Opinion Opinion, comment and editorials of the day
By The Week UK Published
-
Henry Kissinger dies aged 100: a complicated legacy?
Talking Point Top US diplomat and Nobel Peace Prize winner remembered as both foreign policy genius and war criminal
By Harriet Marsden, The Week UK Last updated
-
Trump’s rhetoric: a shift to 'straight-up Nazi talk'
Why everyone's talking about Would-be president's sinister language is backed by an incendiary policy agenda, say commentators
By The Week UK Published
-
More covfefe: is the world ready for a second Donald Trump presidency?
Today's Big Question Republican's re-election would be a 'nightmare' scenario for Europe, Ukraine and the West
By Sorcha Bradley, The Week UK Published