Why American Voters Should Care More About Foreign Policy
General Atomics MQ-9 Reaper operated by the United States Air Force. Photo from the Library of Congress.
One of the American president’s most important responsibilities is foreign policy. Why is it, then, that so little focus is put on foreign policy in presidential elections? In the 2020 Democratic primary debates, candidates have seen an average of 8.29 foreign policy questions per debate—only 20 percent of the total time. Considering the president’s vast authority to shape the world, the fact that global affairs are discussed so rarely raises real questions about the country’s priorities.
Foreign policy isn’t only neglected in the debates, but by ordinary voters as well. In a December 2019 Gallup poll, U.S. adults were asked to name the most important issues influencing their vote in the 2020 presidential election. Of 16 issues presented, the five most important issues were healthcare, national security, gun policy, education and the economy. Missing from that list? Foreign affairs and international trade, which only 21 percent and 18 percent of those polled said were the most important issues, respectively.
Of course, it makes sense that domestic issues like healthcare or economic policy take precedence over foriegn policy. We are directly affected by our nation’s hospitals, stimulus packages, and economy, while most of us rarely interact with the effects of conflicts in countries thousands of miles away. As war has gotten more technologically advanced, the percentage of Americans that bear the burden of fighting in conflict has fallen to 0.5 percent, making it more difficult for most of us to envision the psychological effects of conflict on our lives that previous generations could. In turn, we often neglect the effects of our country’s foreign policy decisions and don’t devote sufficient consideration to candidates’ foreign policy platforms.
This trend is worrying, especially as it has become increasingly apparent in recent years that foreign policy is the area in which presidents have the most unilateral power. For example, the Authorization for the Use of Military Force, originally intended for use against the perpetrators of 9/11, has been cited as legal justification for everything from drone strikes to combat in 19 different countries—bypassing a declaration of war from Congress.
We don’t need to look far back to see the disastrous impacts poor decisions can have on the global stage. In January of this year, President Trump, like his two predecessors, cited the 2002 AUMF that was passed to authorize the Iraq War as legal justification for airstrikes against Iranian General Qassem Soleimani. The president almost brought the U.S. to the brink of war without even so much as a memo for Congress. A few months earlier, the withdrawal of U.S. troops from northern Syria put millions of Kurds and Yazidis at risk of ethnic cleansing. Although we do not yet know the long term implications of these decisions, it is clear that their recklessness absent meaningful oversight can put American lives at risk in the future.
These instances are not just expansions of presidential power—they represent the abdication of legislative and judicial oversight. Choosing to launch airstrikes almost brought the U.S. to the brink of war. Choosing to turn a blind eye to a potential genocide is both morally unacceptable and harmful for the United States’ international image. These choices matter for the health of this country’s long term international position.
Even though Congress has made small attempts at restricting combat powers, the effects of the President’s foreign policy outside of militaristic decisions still have grave implications. In the span of four years, President Trump has withdrawn the United States from the Paris Climate Accords, ripped up the Iran Nuclear Deal, reversed the North American Free Trade Agreement and the Trans-Pacific Partnership, rolled back President Obama’s normalization of relations with Cuba, and initiated several trade wars under the scope of his powers as commander in chief. No matter where one stands on these policies, there is no question that millions of people in the world’s most vulnerable populations —both in developing countries and here at home—will be affected by presidential foreign policy decisions for generations.
While issues such as healthcare are important, especially in the face of the COVID-19 crisis, we must be cognizant that the reforms for which even moderate candidates are advocating will require years of Congressional negotiation and gridlock. However, the president’s foreign policy decision making can be done in seconds with far less oversight, creating both immediate and long term consequences.
As a consequence of globalization, rash foreign policy decisions will also intersect with domestic issues. If a new trade deal is not analyzed and debated thoroughly, consumers and workers in all involved countries will ultimately suffer. If a conflict in the Middle East spikes oil prices, consumers both here and abroad would see more difficulty in obtaining a job and making ends meet. Although I’d argue that it is moral to care about issues that might not directly affect us, we must also recognize the practical implications that bad foreign policy has on our domestic livelihoods.
Of course, as primary season winds down, it has become all but certain that Joe Biden will be the Democratic nominee. Yet I don’t believe it is too late to change the way this country handles foreign policy. Many down-ballot House and Senate races are still competitive, and choosing candidates based on their position on the War Powers Act or their voting history on war resolutions can set a precedent for the type of oversight we expect from Congress. Not only will it reassert Congress’s role in foreign policy, but it will prepare the next generation of presidential candidates who will make change from within the executive branch.When evaluating these candidates, it is our responsibility to prioritize a candidate’s foreign policy platform and plan for congressional oversight at the same level, if not higher, than their domestic platform. If we choose not to, the consequences both internationally and domestically will be dire.
Oliver Niu is a staff writer at CPR and a first-year in Columbia College studying Economics and Political Science. You can catch him traveling off campus or sipping coffee in Butler Library.