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. 

During the 2004 election cycle, relations with Saudi Arabia, in particular, will be an issue... ...regional issues – security issues to the American electorate – are being used in a variety of ways along the campaign trail. Candidates are trying to win votes, and naturally address the issues that are on the minds of most voters. This year, the Middle East is a domestic campaign issue.

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.

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 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.

Few would have thought in wake of the Desert Storm in 1991 that George H. W. Bush could lose, let alone to a relatively unknown governor from Arkansas. Bush, after all, presided over the fall of the Soviet Union, won a war against Saddam Hussein, and moved the Middle East peace process forward in the most significant way since Carter. But while Bush worked his magic on the global scene, the American economy flagged. While most Americans acknowledged his international prowess, Bush was seen as out of touch with Americans, and unaware of the issues that really mattered to the American electorate. In short, Bush’s foreign successes did nothing to increase his political standing at home.

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.

In 2004, foreign policy – which incorporates the concept of security, which in turn is linked in the minds of American voters to the war on terrorism, Iraq, Afghanistan, and the Middle East peace process – is a key domestic issue. John Doe believes, even if he does not know how exactly or why, that the actions of the United States abroad and what transpires overseas is directly related to his economic and actual security. Foreign policy will be a bread and butter issue in 2004, and perhaps beyond.

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. The Crown Prince’s comment reflects those of his countrymen. Saudi Arabians are struggling to understand why they are being tarred and feathered in Washington.

During the 2004 election cycle, relations with Saudi Arabia, in particular, will be an issue. In general, all nations in the Middle East have suffered to varying degrees in the court of U.S. public opinion. All suffer from a regional stigma which has been triggered by a combination of factors: 9-11 and the war on terrorism, the Intifada, Iraq, Afghanistan, “political Islam,” and differing views about the region and world. All these issues are connected in the minds of American voters. Therefore, it should come as no great surprise that these regional issues – security issues to the American electorate – are being used in a variety of ways along the campaign trail. Candidates are trying to win votes, and naturally address the issues that are on the minds of most voters. This year, the Middle East is a domestic campaign issue.

Democratic presidential aspirant Senator Joe Lieberman of Connecticut, himself an observant Orthodox Jew, has bucked the AIPAC line in the past in favor of allowing arms sales to Saudi Arabia.

In the past, Saudi Arabia was something of a Teflon ally to the United States. Saudi Arabia was criticized in America for its position vis-ŕ-vis Israel, human rights record, and other issues. But in the end, the alliance was not consistently questioned or seriously challenged because Saudi Arabia was so important to the American economy and its regional political interests. No single issue stuck to the Kingdom and damaged its political standing in Washington. In fact Congress, in defiance of the powerful pro-Israel lobby led by AIPAC, repeatedly approved selling arms to the Kingdom. Democratic presidential aspirant Senator Joe Lieberman of Connecticut, himself an observant Orthodox Jew, has bucked the AIPAC line in the past in favor of allowing arms sales to Saudi Arabia.