Twelve months from now, the American public will be embroiled in one of the most highly anticipated election seasons of recent memory. Both parties have already begun posturing for the primary campaign trail. After the transformative congressional midterm elections, the Republican-controlled House and Senate are working to build a public coalition of support through smart policy. At the same time, as suggested by his sixth State of the Union Address in January, President Obama is working to frame the Democratic legacy he wants to leave in the Oval Office. March 2016 will be a month full of primary elections and moderated debates. More importantly, however, next March will be an opportunity to revive national discussions on issues like immigration, same-sex marriage, and above all, foreign policy.
Although international affairs have traditionally not played a large role in United States presidential campaigns, 2016 is slated to be an exception. On the notion of a “foreign policy election” in a recent MSNBC interview, Howard Dean, former governor of Vermont and former chairman of the Democratic National Committee, noted the effects of the Vietnam War on presidents Nixon and Johnson and the relevance of the 2003 Iraq War for President Bush. Considering the current state of international affairs, the potential foreign policy legacy of the Obama administration, and the anticipated party frontrunners for 2016, potential presidential contenders will need to focus their efforts on a coherent foreign policy strategy to survive the campaign and stay in the race. A candidate’s foreign proficiency may not be the determining factor for American voters next year, but just as in the 1960s and 2000s, it will play a prominent role at the polls.
Recent global events ensure that the coming election will center on foreign policy. With the recovering job market and the surging stock market, economic concerns have begun to recede in the political discourse. Instead, over the last year, newspaper headlines and pundit discussions have centered on Russian aggression in Crimea, extremist organizations in North Africa and the expansion of ISIL in the Middle East. Even members of the Obama Administration, like former Secretary of Defense Chuck Hagel and chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff General Martin Dempsey, have expressed concern over the deteriorating state of international affairs.
Undoubtedly, when Americans enter the election booth next fall, news of these international events will enter with them. A recent poll by the Huffington Post and YouGov noted that 41 percent of respondents thought foreign policy would factor predominantly in the 2016 race, while just 36 percent chose domestic policy as the bigger concern. According to a 2014 poll by Third Way, just 13 percent of respondents viewed foreign policy as “the most important issue facing the country today.”
This change, of course, is representative of the increased resources that will be afforded to international issues in the coming months. President Obama’s recent request for an Authorization for Use of Military Force (AUMF) against ISIL, for example, calls for a three-year sunset for military action. Such language almost guarantees that long-term military engagement will be left for the country’s next president to complete. Obama’s AUMF also guarantees a significant response from Republican leaders. Historically, the GOP has been known for its strength in foreign affairs, maintaining a “security gap” over Democratic policies. Gallup’s 2014 question on “protecting the country from international terrorism and military threats” put the Republican Party in its largest lead on this measure since 2002.
And so as with any presidential race, 2016 will also serve as a response to the policies of the previous administration. Just as Obama came into office in 2008 on a platform largely opposed to the Bush wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, the next US president will likely campaign on foreign policies responsive to those of the Obama administration. With deadlock in Congress, it is undisputed that President Obama has given more attention to American foreign policy in recent months, opening relations with Cuba, assembling an international coalition against ISIL and agreeing to new climate protocols with China. Recent foreign actions, like Obama’s November memorandums on immigration and threatened vetoes of congressional bills on Iran, have also stretched the president’s Article II executive power to serve a more unilateral function. This methodology has strained already intense divisions in Washington, calling into question the White House’s ability to lead.
Posturing for next year’s presidential race, conservative leaders have already begun to capitalize on these perceived missteps of the Obama administration. At the annual Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC) last month, Governor Mike Pence of Indiana called for an increased defense budget. John Bolton, former representative to the United Nations, spoke recently as well, stressing the importance of American deterrence. Criticizing Obama’s foreign policy, former Florida governor Jeb Bush and former Texas governor Rick Perry both supported more ground forces in the fight against ISIL, while Florida Senator Marco Rubio highlighted the need for a better relationship with Israel. Even libertarian leader Senator Rand Paul, traditionally an advocate of non-intervention and reduced foreign spending, prioritized “American interests” and protecting “national defense” in language largely responsive to recent US weakness. These remarks, combined with new concerns for world affairs, have begun to frame the 2016 campaign around foreign policy.
On the other side of the aisle, Democratic frontrunner Hillary Clinton has distanced herself from her former cabinet boss. Stepping down as Secretary of State at the start of President Obama’s second term, Clinton has been critical of the American response to ISIL, approach to Iranian negotiation and response to Russian aggression. And if Vice President Joe Biden sees himself in the ring for 2016, he will certainly need to be careful in defending the foreign policy of the past several years while facing the revived Clinton strategy for foreign engagement.
In many ways, the posturing of these potential candidates themselves ensures that 2016 will be centered on foreign policy. With her experience as Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton brings significant international affairs know-how if she decides to enter the race. Anyone running against her will need to be familiar with the ins and outs of American foreign policy. With this in mind, Republicans have looked to balance the field with new candidates of their own. As a leader on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, for example, Senator Marco Rubio has gained significant attention on the Republican ticket. Jeb Bush, maybe the most pronounced of the Republican potentials, also recently hired twenty-one foreign affairs advisors, many from his brother’s administration. This positioning of various politicians and presumed runners has started to broaden the foreign policy debate well ahead of the election next fall.
One year away from the primary campaign trail, there is already tremendous speculation on the contenders and their chances for success. While the influence of domestic affairs in the election has yet to be determined, it is clear that issues of foreign policy will loom large. As Robert Kagan, a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution, recently explained: “The minute you let any political advisor get anywhere near a president, the first thing they are going to do is say ‘don’t talk about foreign policy.’” In words all too fitting for the political landscape of 2016, he continues: “[…] you have now risen to a higher mission, and one of your missions is to talk to the American people about what the world looks like.”
Given all that is happening around the world, how the Obama administration has positioned its own policies and who have been the leading voices in the early election discourse up to now, a strong foreign policy will be vital for standing out in the 2016 presidential campaign. Politicians will need to listen to electorate opinions on change, appeal to swing voters with new policies, and balance the needs of the past with promises for the future. One year from now in the election booth, they will need the foreign policy mission on their side.