Flogging the Arabs for Votes? The 2004 U.S. Presidential Election and the Middle East
by David T. Dumke

And So Begins the Campaign Season

On the campaign trail the barrage against Saudi Arabia has already started. Democrat Bob Graham, the respected veteran Senator from Florida, has repeatedly excoriated the Bush Administration for allegedly blocking portions of the congressional terrorism report from being published. Graham, who chaired the Senate Intelligence Committee that helped write the report, has implied that by censoring the report, Bush is irresponsibly protecting the Saudi monarchy and his own allies in the oil industry.

While one might not agree with this allegation, Graham’s verbal assault suggests the Bush Administration has hindered our nation’s effort to win the war on terrorism. He has also noted that Bush intentionally misled Americans and squandered international sympathy by foolishly attacking Iraq instead of those groups that are of imminent threat to America, namely al-Qaeda, Hizbollah, and Hamas.

Bob Graham is not the only Democratic presidential candidate mentioning foreign policy issues in stump speeches this year. Howard Dean, the maverick former Governor of tiny Vermont, has momentarily become the frontrunner in large part due to his opposition to the invasion of Iraq. John Kerry, the Massachusetts senator who is favored by party insiders, supported the invasion, but now has badgered the President on his handling of the post-war period, if indeed it is a post-war period. 

Labor darling and former House Democratic Leader Dick Gephardt oft mentions his steadfast support of Israel and has made moving the U.S. Embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem a key foreign policy plank. The dark horse candidate, yet to announce his candidacy, is retired General Wesley Clark. He is being encouraged to run because of his knowledge of and ability in the foreign policy realm. Indeed, foreign policy -- and more specifically foreign policy pertaining to Saudi Arabia and the Islamic world -- today is equated with security, undoubtedly the most important issue on the minds of American voters.

Unlike recent national elections, foreign policy will play a significant role in the upcoming November 2004 U.S. presidential election. Traditionally, American voters are primarily motivated by domestic concerns. Candidates’ platforms highlighted bread and butter issues, such as tax policy, crime, health care, government-run social programs, and education, because those issues had the most impact on the daily lives of the average American. Accordingly, while of considerable importance, so long as Americans felt stability prevailed -- under a Cold War or post-Cold War configuration -- foreign policy questions were nary mentioned on the campaign trail. Those issues had no resonance. “It’s the economy, stupid,” noted Bill Clinton’s chief strategist, James Carville, throughout the 1992 election that resulted in the defeat of President George H. W. Bush, who frequently touted his foreign policy gravitas.

Out of Site, Out of Mind

Fundamental to understanding the American electorate is recognizing that Americans are traditionally isolationist, or at least think of themselves as isolationist. After all, they live in a country that can feed itself and is protected not only by a beefy military, but also the Atlantic and Pacific oceans. It may be an interdependent world connected by vast trade and diplomatic links, but this fact has not historically registered in the mind of the average American voters. Sure, the infamous and anonymous American John Doe knows the world is out there, but it’s not here. It has not greatly influenced his life, at least noticeably. He is, or was, safe in Fortress America.

Success in the foreign policy field rarely helps American presidents, but failures can hurt them and lead to broader criticisms and questions about leadership abilities. Jimmy Carter and George Bush I offer excellent examples of the negative political value of foreign policy.

In the case of Carter, all his domestic political liabilities – most related to the disastrous state of the American economy – became amplified by the Iran hostage crisis and the perception of his inept handling of it. On the other hand, while very temporarily boosting his image, the historic Camp David Accords did little to negate Carter’s image as a weak leader. The foreign policy issues facing Carter were not the most pressing issues on the minds of Americans in 1980, but his handling of Iran led voters to question his ability to handle domestic concerns. In the end, his international successes did not increase his political shelf life.

And so it goes throughout modern American history, with notable exceptions. Lyndon Johnson crafted the popular Great Society social programs, and oversaw the passage of landmark civil rights legislation. Yet Vietnam’s unpopularity ended his exceptional political career. Korea was Harry Truman’s political death knell. Herbert Hoover’s knowledge of international trade and aid amounted for little in the face of the Great Depression. Woodrow Wilson oversaw victory in World War I, but couldn’t capitalize on it domestically.

It’s a New Ballgame

History bares witness to the fact that rules tend to change in times of national crisis. And without question, the rules long governing American foreign policy and domestic politics have changed, at least temporarily. The September 11, 2001 attack on New York and Washington drastically altered the American political climate. This change has had ramifications on the political process in general, but also on the importance of foreign policy as a political campaign issue.

As the American 2004 presidential campaign gets underway, foreign policy aptitude, as well as military experience, is a great asset to a candidate, particularly to President Bush. Politically, the fear of terrorism and post-9-11 hyper-patriotism resulted in an astronomical leap in support for the once politically weak President; it still buoys him up and grants him enormous political capital. Each “bleep” on the foreign policy radar – whether it be the invasion of Afghanistan or Iraq, the arrest of “sleeper” agents in the U.S., or a “code red” warning about a possible terrorist strike – results in an upsurge of support for Bush.

Of course, this could all change. Over the past two months, a growing number of Americans have come to believe the Bush Administration has made serious missteps in its handling of foreign policy. As casualties in Iraq mount, Bush’s overall performance is being evaluated. The window for criticizing Bush on other issues is open, much to the chagrin of the President. For economic problems could prove fatal to the Bush Administration.

Flogging the Arabs for Votes

“How can a relationship that has been strong and solid for over six decades be questioned like this? I sense that there is some resentment about the relationship and of the Kingdom that I frankly don’t understand,” said HRH Crown Prince Abdullah bin Abdulaziz last year.