In 2012, Democrats Had The Advantage On Foreign Policy
Without question, Barack Obama won the foreign policy debate in the 2012 campaign.
Dan Drezner takes a peak at the exit polls and finds something significant:
A glance at the exit polls showed that Obama won the foreign policy question pretty handily. Only five percent of respondents thought that foreign policy was the most critical issue in this campaign — but of those five percent, voters went for Obama over Romney by 56% to 33%. Voters were also more likely to trust Barack Obama in an international crisis (57%-42%) than Mitt Romney (50%-46%).
This is the first exit poll in at least three decades where the Democrat has outperformed the Republican on foreign policy and national security. And I guarantee that whoever runs from the GOP side in 2016 will not have a ton of foreign policy experience. The GOP has managed to squander an advantage in perceived foreign policy competency that it had owned for decades. This — combined with shifts on social issues and demographics — will be a problem that the Republicans are going to need to address.
This isn’t really surprising. Although foreign policy wasn’t a central issue in the campaign by far outside of one 90 minute debate in late October, polling throughout the race showed the the President far ahead of Mitt Romney on the question of who the voters trusted with regard to foreign policy. That was true before the foreign policy debate, and it was true after the foreign policy debate. Moreover, the President’s job approval on foreign policy matters remained positive throughout the election season. While the GOP has spent the last four years accusing the President of being weak on foreign policy and claiming, falsely, that he has gone around the world “apologizing for America,” that has been little indication that the public disapproved of anything that the President has done in the foreign policy realm, and absolutely no indication that they support the more aggressive foreign policy positions advocated by Mitt Romney and the Republicans. Additionally, outside the vague comments and largely unfounded criticisms of the President, Mitt Romney and the GOP never really offered a coherent alternative in this area. Finally, and perhaps most importantly, to a nation weary of war, they seemed to present the image of a party that would engage in policies that would only serve to get the nation more involved in war in regions of the world that have been nothing but trouble for us from the beginning.
Kevin Drum comments:
Thanks, George Bush! We like to say that Americans have short memories, and that’s true in a way. On the other hand, a majority of voters still blame Bush for the lousy economy more than they blame Obama, and the Bush destruction of the Republican brand on foreign policy still seems to be going strong too.
The question at this point is whether Republicans realize just how much they’ve lost the advantage on foreign policy. Gone are the days of the Cold War, especially post-Vietnam, when Democratic infighting essentially handed the issue to the GOP on a silver platter. Gone too are the post 9/11 days when the GOP could unite the nation around the issue of terrorism without having to worry about the taint of the failed War In Iraq. Barack Obama has not been perfect in foreign policy. Specifically I’d say that his actions in Libya without the consent of Congress and his decision to launch essentially unrestricted, secret, and unreviewable drone warfare in countless countries around the world are rather egregious mistakes. Additionally, I think the Administration put far too much faith in the Arab Spring to bring about “democracy” in the Arab world, only to now find itself faced with instability in nations like Egypt and Libya, a civil war in Syria, and the ever-present threat that the forces that led people to Tahrir Square in 2011 will find themselves in Saudi Arabia, potentially leading to events that could send the whole region into chaos.
That said, there was absolutely nothing about Mitt Romney’s foreign policy that recommended itself to me, to the extent there was a coherent foreign policy. For the most part, it was little more than warmed-over repeats of the Bush Era which were already being repeated by the Obama Administration. Indeed, the most noteworthy thing about the foreign policy “debate” is that it wasn’t very much of a debate at all since the candidates seemed to agree far more than they disagreed. To the extent that they disagreed, Romney seemed to be influenced to a disturbing degree by the kind of reckless confrontation advocated by people like John Bolton, who was among his group of foreign policy advisers.
Perhaps that’s why it’s a good thing that Mitt Romney lost. Perhaps this will lead the GOP to open a debate on foreign policy that will move beyond the neo-conservatism that has dominated the party since the George W. Bush Presidency. Alternatives have already been offered by people such as Senator Rand Paul, who endorsed Romney in the General Election but was sharply critical of his foreign policy positionsseveral times during the course of the campaign. Paul gave a hint of where he stands on these issues during his speech at the Republican National Convention:
Republicans and Democrats alike must slay their sacred cows. Republicans must acknowledge that not every dollar spent on the military is necessary or well- spent, and Democrats must admit that domestic welfare and entitlements must be reformed.
Republicans and Democrats must replace fear with confidence, confidence that no terrorist, and no country, will ever conquer us if we remain steadfast to the principles of our Founding documents.
We have nothing to fear except our own unwillingness to defend what is naturally ours, our God-given rights. We have nothing to fear that should cause us to forget or relinquish our rights as free men and women.
To thrive we must believe in ourselves again, and we must never — never — trade our liberty for any fleeting promise of security.
It’s still a minority position in the GOP, but I bet it’s one that would resonate quite well with the public as a whole. Perhaps Republicans should give it a try.
And it pisses me off. The Dems FP approach leaves a lot to be desired. It’s thoroughly attackable, but the GOP cannot do it. First because they blew their credibility under Bush the Younger and second because their actual views/policies are even worse than the Dems (in my opinion, obviously). The libertarians and the greens can do it, yay.
Remember 2004? The Dems should have been in position to absolutely savage the GOP on FP that year. But they couldn’t, because their top-tier people had gone along with the Iraq war. So you got John Kerry trying to take an untenable position, and it didn’t work.
Maybe I’m wrong in that a convincing anti-Iraq war Dem would still have lost in 2004. That’s entirely possible. But the fact that Kerry, and Hillary, and whoever else was could plausibly been nominated couldn’t argue that they saw the push for war as the bullshit it was means we’ll never know.
Basically the two parties argue over who will more competently execute an interventionist foreign policy. Right now, the Dems have the edge. That’s nice in a way, since I agree with them on other matters and I prefer competence to incompetence.
I vehemently disagree with Senator Paul on some things. Important things. But I’m glad he’s around, and this is why.
But but but … Benghazi!
(It was the worst epistemic closure to rank “Libya > Afghanistan” … really in any foreign policy debate, but certainly in terms of current militarism, current costs, current losses of American lives.
It’s freaking sad and transparent that Libya is pinned to Obama’s vest while America carries Afghanistan on it’s back.)
@Rob in CT:
Good analysis here:
The New Barack Obama
Robert Wright, at The Atlantic
Well, let’s not somehow ignore the giant flaming neon elephant (donkey, actually) in the room.
What would those numbers have looked like if the national mass media (NBC, CBS, ABC) had reported the Benghazi fiasco and its ensuing cover up?
That aside, every survey showed unequivocally that the economy by leaps and bounds was the No. 1 issue in this campaign; ergo Team Romney made the tactical decision to focus almost entirely on that issue. And he won that issue with voters. It simply wasn’t enough, however, to overcome the complete lock step voting patterns by the various Democrat racial identity groups. That in a nutshell summarizes the election. Along with the other elephant in the room: Republicans in droves didn’t vote.
Going forward the GOP doesn’t really need to do much if anything about its position on foreign policy. That’s a shibboleth and a media/Internet meme. The millions of Republicans who voted for George W. Bush in ’04 but mysteriously have disappeared since then (and we are literally talking about millions of people; compare the respective vote totals and D-R-I percentages) are not staying home because of Bush’s foreign policies. Were that the case they would have stayed home in Nov. ’04 and we’d be discussing John Kerry’s presidency. There’s something else going on here. Maybe it was the profligate spending that turned them away. Maybe the expansion of the federal government. I don’t know that anybody knows. But it’s not foreign policy. Can’t be. Again, were that the case Bush would have been defeated back in ’04.
A move we would all like to see, but no an easy task when you’ve got think tanks and the established “serious thinkers” and policy people with precisely the opposite view.
I think those of us who want less interventionist stupidity in our FP have to do a better job tying our FP to our fiscal issues.
Tsar is correct about one thing: the public doesn’t really vote on FP. I think it matters more than he thinks, but it certainly is a secondary concern.
Ah, but how much money did we blow on Iraq, The Sequel? $1T? $2T? I forget. And that’s just part of it. What would the DoD’s budget look like if we did not feel the pressing need to stick our fingers in every damned pie?
The public might not care much about FP (unless/until serious casualties occur), but they care more about taxes and spending. The linkage has to be made and made and made. We have finite resources. We can pay for grandiose schemes on the other side of the world, or we can pay our bills at home. And yes, I know this is a simplification in that “weaponized Keynesianism” pumps a lot of money through various congressional districts. Including mine, home to the Groton sub base and Electric Boat. The question has to be “is that a good investment?”
Doug says: “It’s still a minority position in the GOP, but I bet it’s one that would resonate quite well with the public as a whole. Perhaps Republicans should give it a try.”
Tsar says: “What would those numbers have looked like if the national mass media (NBC, CBS, ABC) had reported the Benghazi fiasco and its ensuing cover up?”
Something tells me that Republicans (and their base especially) are just not yet prepared to tackle any major foreign policy issues just yet.
Tsar, that Benghazi fiasco was no cover-up. It was a covert CIA operation.
You could be asking why we’re running risky CIA operations in Benghazi, what we’re trying to accomplish there. You know….an intelligent critique.
But nope. It’s back to the old “The media outlets with acronyms are covering up the truth.”
Oh well….there’s always 2020.
The Democrats have some how become the “Daddy” party……never thought I would see the day.
@Jr:
GWB changed the game. Overreaction (even preemptive) to guard against terror strikes became the norm. See Robert Wright above. He supports my past observation that drone strikes became broadly accepted – not to mention political insurance.
Tsar, that Benghazi fiasco was no cover-up. It was a covert CIA operation.
You could be asking why we’re running risky CIA operations in Benghazi, what we’re trying to accomplish there. You know….an intelligent critique.
And the CIA isn’t part of the administration? Obama didn’t appoint the head of the CIA? Obama wouldn’t have been aware of said covert operation in Benghazi?
This defense appears to make the CIA seem like a completely separate entity from the White House and Obama’s hands are totally clean.
I also still want a time line for what Obama was doing those 8 hours, what decisions he made, and how they were carried out.
Also, there are reports that the African Command didn’t have the planes or the people to mount any kind of rescue or support. That command has existed since 2008 and it hasn’t been given the personnel or equipment to deal with problems like this?
Nope, there were a lot of failures in the whole Benghazi disaster and the president lied about to the American people and scapegoated a movie and a movie maker. I still want answers.
And I especially would like to know why a command for African hasn’t been given the ability to do its job for 4 years under this president.
@Just Me: You’re almost on the right track.
This is where you faltered:
What do you mean, you want answers? You have your answer. It’s in the previous sentence.
Until Republicans can recognize that Benghazi was a tragedy that merits an investigation regarding inter and intra-agency coordination instead of Watergate+9/11, they’re really not a serious party on foreign policy. The media played up the Benghazi story much more than the general public even cared about it.
@Just Me:
Let me start by saying that I think Ben is right when he focuses on detail, and calls out Republicans for being willing to burn intelligence operation for political gain.
That said, step back and tap your inner Patton. Be a little blood and guts for a minute:
Libya. 4 American deaths. Victory for US interests.
Iraq. 4488 American deaths. A tie. Saddam removed, a corrupt and unstable government installed, Iran in a stronger position.
Afghanistan. 2150 American deaths. A loss. We got Bin Laden, but we’ll leave some form of Taliban in place.
Stop and think for a moment how this will look in 15 or 20 years. No one will give a flying fig for Libya. It will be a trivia question. On the other hand Afghanistan will have it’s place as America’s longest war. (God willing.) One that gave us something like 15,000 returning vets with traumatic brain injuries.
@Just Me:
Your problem is you only listen to wingnut nonsense and believe every word. You are convinced the administration lied about Benghazi because wingnut blogs and media told you they did. They didn’t. The wingnut morons whose nonsense you dutifully repeat are playing stupid semantic games and pretending it is a scandal. It’s semantics, and it doesn’t matter to anyone except you idiots, and you don’t give a shit about security or those men’s lives, you care about attacking the president. There is no cover up.
@Geek, Esq.: Until Republicans can recognize that Benghazi was a tragedy that merits an investigation regarding inter and intra-agency coordination instead of Watergate+9/11, they’re really not a serious party on foreign policy. The media played up the Benghazi story much more than the general public even cared about it.
Let me give you a head start:
Prior to 9/11/12: The Obama administration was informed that the consulate in Benghazi was woefully insecure, that there were a lot of terrorists in and around Benghazi, that they were preparing for something big, and the 9/11 anniversary was coming.
On 9/11/12: There were no riots by Muslims enraged over a stupid YouTube video. Rather, terrorists attacked the consulate, overwhelming the incomplete security measures. Two CIA operatives who were former SEALs disobeyed orders to “stand down” and ran into harm’s way, fought like hell for hours, most likely killed over 50 terrorists, and spent the entire time screaming for backup — which never arrived.
The terrorists kill the two operatives and two State Department officials, including our ambassador, and overrun the consulate, compromising many classified documents and operations.
At the time of the attack, Obama was holding a security meeting in the White House.
There was live video of the attack.
After 9/11/12: Obama and his proxies downplay the terrorism angle despite having concrete knowledge to the contrary, and instead fabricate a “Muslim riot” inspired by a semi-obscure YouTube video. They spend the next two weeks (give or take) pushing this story.and dismissing talk of terrorism.
There, I just saved a bunch of time and money on the “investigation.” You’re welcome.
What proof do you have that they put any faith in the Arab Spring? Public statements in support of democracy don’t count by the way as they are required of any semi-competent American diplomat.
Seriously. What specific concrete steps should they have taken that they didn’t (or what steps did the take that they shouldn’t have)? We are in a no win situation with respect to the Arab Spring. We can’t condemn it and side with tyranny, further damaging the American brand among then populace. We didn’t commit or provide any material support for the protestors. So what exactly do you think we should have done differently?
@mantis: Kindly correct your icon. You’re so full of shit, your eyes are brown.
@mantis: And here’s Jay Carney spinning the same bullshit, eight days after the assassination.
@Just Me:
Hey, I still want a time line for what Bush was doing the 8 YEARS he was president, what decisions he made, and how (and why? why?) they were carried out. But I’m not holding my breath.
Um, faith or no faith, what’s the alternative? Those governments were (and still are, in Syria) going down, with or without or help. Had the Obama administration not, as you write, “put far too much faith in the Arab Spring”, then what would be different today? What would have had them do instead?
It’s a pretty silly, shallow and meaningless critique you have there, since in essence you’re criticizing them for hoping that it turns out for the best. Um, yes, yes we did. But what else should we have done, given that we had limited means and opportunity and reason to oppose the Arab Spring?
@Rafer Janders: Hey, I still want a time line for what Bush was doing the 8 YEARS he was president, what decisions he made, and how (and why? why?) they were carried out.
Gosh darn that Bush! I’ll never vote for him again!
But I’m not holding my breath.
Oh, please do.
@Just Me: “I also still want a time line for what Obama was doing those 8 hours, what decisions he made, and how they were carried out.”
You want a timeline for 8 hours of the president’s life? Excuse me, and with all due respect… who the hell do you think you are?
The President of the United States is responsible to the American people for the policies he sets, the decisions he makes, and the actions he sets into motion.
If you choose to believe that he was in front of a computer monitor cheering for terrorists to kill his embassy personnel while he watched, that’s certainly your right.
But to demand that he account to you for every minute over an eight hour period — or a five minute period, for that matter — again, who the hell do you think you are? He’s not your house servant, he’s not your kid, he’s not your dog. He is a public official doing his job, not a contestant on Big Brother.
Yeah, you don’t like him, I get it. Now grow up.
@wr: Au contraire, moron. Obama IS our servant. He is our employee. He’s not our ruler.
And let’s make it simpler:
What warnings did Obama get ahead of the attack?
When did Obama first learn that our consulate was under attack?
What options were presented to him about the attack?
What orders did he issue regarding the attack?
When did Obama learn that there was no “riot by Muslims outraged over a YouTube video” at the Benghazi consulate?
That’s just for starters.
@Just Me:
This isn’t 24, that was a television show.
Let’s pretend (admittedly, it requires a high level of imagination) that Jenos is right and Obama fell down on a specific reaction to a specific attack on a specific target.
WTF does that have to do with foreign POLICY?
@pylon:
Obviously, with a competent leader, no one ever dies.
What warnings did Obama get ahead of the attack?
I thnk a breifing entitled “Bin laden determined to Attack US”. No, wait.
When did Obama first learn that our consulate was under attack?
During a photo op. No, wait.
What options were presented to him about the attack?
I’m pretty sure they told him he could chopper in with Arnie and take out the attackers.
What orders did he issue regarding the attack?
Actually, i think he just continued to read “My Pet Goat”.
When did Obama learn that there was no “riot by Muslims outraged over a YouTube video” at the Benghazi consulate?
Who cares? He said the next day and the day after that that it was an act of terror.
@Jenos Idanian #13: “Obama IS our servant. He is our employee. He’s not our ruler”
The fact that Obama is not our ruler does not make him your servant.
But thanks for the insight into the loathesome bowels of your mind. Must really chap you to know that he’s one of “those” people, and yet he doesn’t have to bow down to you, his natural superior.
http://www.dailystar.com.lb/Opinion/Columnist/2012/Nov-05/193732-cias-benghazi-timeline-reveals-errors-but-no-conspiracy.ashx#axzz2Bf9SyBD9
You know, wr, I think you’re actually being too hard on Jenos there (on the very specific issue of the servant thing). Public servant. Serves the people.
…
That said, I look at this very much like John Personna does – Libya is small potatoes. It still irks me, as the decision-making process stunk (basically a gut call by O to ride in and save the day on what are essentially “R2P” and “it’s doable” grounds) and I see it as yet another in a long chain of shitty decisions in US foreign policy: Somalia, Bosnia, Iraq II, Afghanistan (scope of mission and how long we’ve stuck with it)… heck there were things about Iraq I that I find questionable in hindsight.
But in the end? I give a demerit here, but it pales in comparison to more important matters. I’m more disappointed about the double-down stay the course choice on Afghanistan. That was FAR more consequential.
He may not my servant, but he also is not a dictator and is accountable for decisions he makes. That’s why our government is divided into three branches.
@Jay Tea’s dimwitted puppet Jenos Idanian #13:
I understand you think your semantic arguments are convincing, but they only are to morons like yourself.
@mantis: If you opened your eyes for a change, you’d notice that I linked to videos of UN Ambassador Susan Rice and White House Spokesman Jay Carney not only lying, but showing you to be a liar as well.
@pylon: That’s an interesting link. Presuming it’s accurate, there are something interesting things there.
Word of the attack went out at 9:40. There was a drone (unarmed) overhead by 11:15. And the fight was still going on at 5:15, when Woods and Doherty were killed. So there was a 7.5 hour window to get substantial help to Benghazi… and it never arrived.
I also doubt that Woods and Doherty were using the laser sighters to “warn” or “scare” the terrorists. A lot of those laser illuminators work outside the visible spectrum. They might have been using visible-light ones, but not necessarily.
@pylon: WTF does that have to do with foreign POLICY?
We helped overthrow the previous Libyan regime. We backed the rebels. And Ambassador Stevens was in Benghazi to advance Obama’s foreign policy.
It also might have escaped your notice, but it also happened in a foreign country. And two of the dead worked for the State Department, which has a little to do with foreign policy.
@Jenos Idanian #13: So if an American is killed in the USA, does that make it a matter of domestic policy/
@Jenos Idanian #13:
If you opened your eyes for a change, you’d notice that I linked to videos of UN Ambassador Susan Rice and White House Spokesman Jay Carney not only lying, but showing you to be a liar as well.
No they didn’t.
Jay, just because a someone is killed, policy is not involved. And even if the US’ involvement in Libya is a matter of policy, a response to an attack in Libya is not. I didn’t not understand any of your inane questions to have anything to do with policy.
The sheer, deliberate denials here are beyond belief. Videos of officials openly lying are not lies. Terrorist attacks on State Department officials overseas in the wake of a revolution we backed (and driven by our foreign policy) have nothing to do with foreign policy.
I need a few more stiff drinks, and remind myself that whatever happens over the next two years, you people own it. I’m just going to sit back and watch it all go to hell.
In the meantime, I think I’ll rejuggle my portfolio in the wake of Obama’s victory.
Out: Insurance companies. In: Pharmaceuticals. (Big Pharma got behind ObamaCare, and was rewarded appropriately Insurance companies will start bleeding huge once it kicks in._
Out: Corporate bonds. (Don’t wanna get screwed over like what happened with GM.) In: precious metals.
Out: Muni bonds, especially California. In: firearms makers.
Out: Utilities and energy companies. In: Food companies.
Way out: health care providers and medical device companies. (More ObamaCare bennies.)
And way, way, way out: “Green energy” companies.
You and others like you are certainly free to contact your/their Congressional Representatives to inquire about impeachment proceedings to deal with these rather serious offenses you are claiming…
Well, if we are playing by those rules, you own everything that happened during the Bush years, including 9/11 and the Iraq Debacle, among many other tragedies…
@An Interested Party:
Well, if we are playing by those rules, you own everything that happened during the Bush years, including 9/11 and the Iraq Debacle, among many other tragedies…
Yeah, great work f*ckwad. Thanks for letting us be in charge for a while. Try to sleep on your front so you don’t drown in your own vomit.