CONFLICTING PARTISAN PRIORITIES FOR U.S. FOREIGN POLICY

So far, no candidate in the crowded 2020 Primary field has leaned into Foreign Policy more than Rep. Tulsi Gabbard. While it seems like an odd political campaign strategy to focus more on Foreign Policy than Domestic Policy in the Primaries, I want to note that Gabbard is making good and important points about America’s role in the world. All candidates should be thinking about how US foreign policies will affect their domestic policy agendas.

Americans are Wary about Interventionist policies

Gabbard gets a lot of criticism for opposing Regime Change interventions while fully supporting the War on Terror but polling shows that Americans overwhelmingly favor policy focus on countering Terrorism over causes like countering countries like Russia, China, and Iran or promotion of Democracy in other countries.

Opinions about what level of priority adversaries like Russia, China, and Iran should be given unsurprisingly breaks pretty sharply along Partisan lines:

Partisan opinions about limiting the power and influence of Iran and Russia are nearly mirror images: 52% of Democrats say reducing Russia’s power and influence should be a top priority, compared with 32% of Republicans. By contrast, 52% of Republicans rate limiting Iran’s power as a top goal, compared with 29% of Democrats. Reducing China’s power and influence is not a leading goal for either party, but more Republicans (39%) than Democrats (26%) rate this as a top priority. There is greater partisan agreement on North Korea: 43% of Republicans and 35% of Democrats say limiting North Korea’s power and influence is a top priority.

Minorities in both parties think promotion of Democracy and Human Rights should be top priorities:

Though neither party rates the promotion of democracy in other nations as a particularly high priority, Democrats are twice as likely as Republicans to say this should be a top foreign policy goal (22% vs. 11%). Views are about the same as they were in a telephone survey conducted in 2013. A similar pattern emerges on promoting and defending human rights in other countries. About four-in-ten Democrats (39%) say promoting human rights abroad should be a top priority. Fewer Republicans (20%) prioritize this goal. This partisan gap is little different from 2013, but wider than at most other points measured over the past 25 years. Today, just 12% of Republicans say improving living standards in developing nations should be a top priority. More than twice as many Democrats (32%) say this should be a top priority.

This is not meant to suggest that US leaders shouldn’t make Countering Adversaries or Promoting Democracy and Human Rights top priorities. Leaders should Lead, not follow public opinion. Presidents should do what is necessary for the security of the American people.

However, what I think most Americans sense is that too often the US engages abroad in conflicts that have little to nothing to do with the security of Americans. Maybe sometimes there’s an Economic Security objective in our foreign interventions (Oil markets, Currency manipulation, etc), but the policy makers usually downplay those objectives and instead focus on the Human Rights abuses of the Regimes we want to topple. The public increasingly sees through the Humanitarian Intervention arguments because our government routinely tolerates Human Rights abuses done by our allies and works with dozens of brutal Dictatorships.

Gabbard isn’t arguing that the US should abandon its allies or we should stop Diplomatically promoting Human Rights. She’s focused on one aspect of US Foreign Policy strategy: Regime Change interventions.

Prioritizing Diplomacy over military and covert Intervention is a slow process and not as instantly gratifying as toppling brutal dictators by Force but the use of Force more often than not leaves nations destabilized and unable to recover.

Resources spent on Regime Change Wars harm Progressive Domestic Policy goals

I assume I’m not alone in frustration whenever someone asks “how are we going to pay for Medicare For All”, but that person never asks how we’re going to pay for endless Wars, skyrocketing Defense spending, a new Arms race, wasteful Defense spending, secret CIA budgets etc.

Maintaining American Hegemony or America’s role as the “World’s Policeman” has a heavy cost for tax payers. Flint MI. still has a water crisis, we have public schools without Heat in the Winter, our infrastructure is crumbling across the country yet we always seem to find millions and billions for new weapons or foreign interventions. Tulsi is Right to question the priorities of our leaders in Congress and the current President.

Regime Change policies are Counter-Productive for Diplomacy

As Gabbard explained in the above video, getting Kim Jong Un to give up his Nukes is pretty much a non-starter following the US-NATO intervention in Libya which led to the fall and execution of Moammar Gadhafi.

CNN 2003: Libya to dismantle WMD programs

Would NATO have intervened in Libya had Gadhafi kept his WMD programs? Probably not. It might’ve been a limited intervention like Syria against Assad and/or re-instatement of economic sanctions at best.

So the message we’ve sent to Authoritarian regimes around the world is that they shouldn’t disarm if they want to remain in power and alive.

Foreign Policy is THE most important part of a President’s job. They all must work with Congress to advance Domestic Policy goals but on Foreign Policies, they have fewer Checks and Balances. It’s important to know where every candidate stands on these issues. So far I’ve only seen Gabbard, Bernie Sanders, and Elizabeth Warren discuss their Foreign Policy views in depth. I’d like to hear more from other candidates.