Citizens Support Barack Obama’s Foreign Policy
Published in El País
(Spain) on 1 November 2011
by Antonio Caño (link to original)
According to two surveys, Americans strongly support the President’s steps against terrorism; this is traditionally a Republican advantage.
Barack Obama has taken the lead over his Republican rivals in a field in which Democrats have always been in an unfavorable position: Foreign policy and security. Although that is traditionally not the issue which determines elections, a series of recent successes is helping the President strengthen his personal image and accentuate the leadership vacuum existing in the opposition.
A survey by The Wall Street Journal and NBC shows that 61 percent of citizens support Obama’s foreign policy, which is a far cry from the 39 percent approval of his economic policy. A previous survey reflected that 64 percent of Americans supported Obama’s conduct against terrorism. Bad news for the White House appears in those surveys as well: Only six percent of potential voters are concerned about international problems.
Those data reveal a trend from several decades ago. The economy, not national security, is the issue that determines voters’ behavior, especially now that the country is suffering an unemployment rate of nine percent. However, foreign policy is a subject that contributes to the credibility of a candidate and, as a last resort, can tip the balance in one direction or the other in close elections.
There are previous examples of this. George H.W. Bush, who is renowned for his international leadership and for his success during the Gulf War, was defeated by Bill Clinton, who was inexperienced in that area, in a time when the economy was the prevailing factor as well. To some extent, Jimmy Carter’s loss to Ronald Reagan is due to the fiasco of the hostages’ rescue in Tehran.
Obama managed to build a winning candidacy in 2008 thanks partly to his refusal to vote for the Iraq war. This allowed him to become an alternative to Hillary Clinton, who had voted in favor of the invasion in Congress. Afterwards, he was able to elaborate a convincing platform in order to fight terrorism and modify the strategy in Afghanistan.
As President, Obama has also succeeded in bringing to an end some of the adventures he inherited from his predecessor. As columnist Thomas Friedman points out, Obama “has turned out to be so much more adept at implementing George W. Bush's foreign policy than Bush was, but he is less adept at implementing his own”.
Success of the Arab Spring
In effect, there have been no advances and even some backtracking regarding goals that this administration had, such as a solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict or the normalization of relations with Cuba. Nevertheless, the President has obtained a certain climate of cooperation with China and Russia and, above all, he could run in next year’s elections with a spectacular record in the fight against terrorism and the democratization of the Arab world. Osama bin Laden, Anwar al-Awlaki and Muammar Gadhafi are dead, al Qaida is on the ropes, three countries in the Middle East have ended their dictatorships, American soldiers will not be dying in Iraq after the end of this year and a date for withdrawal from Afghanistan has already been set.
John McCain, John Boehner and other Republicans in Congress have admitted these successes. However, none of the presidential candidates within the opposition know how to appropriately react to them, something which has caused distress in their own party. “Republican candidates have to fine-tune their foreign policy even more if they want to win,” warned historian and conservative analyst Lee Edwards, who wrote a well-known biography of Ronald Reagan.
Mitt Romney, who is the Republican candidate with the most potential, has stated that Obama’s decision to withdraw from Iraq, as well as confirming the date that Bush had agreed on with Iraqi authorities, “puts at risk the victories that were won through the blood and sacrifice of thousands of American men and women”. Both Romney and other candidates for the Republican primary elections agreed that Gadhafi’s death creates even more uncertainties.
After the primary elections it is going to be difficult for a conservative candidate to defend remaining in Iraq or to claim that Libya was better with Gadhafi. This does not give Obama a great lead with a view to his final victory, but it takes an asset away from the Republicans, an asset they have always had in order to conquer the White House. They are not the party that assures the security of this country from the foreign enemy anymore. All of their options are concentrated in the economy.
Barack Obama has taken the lead over his Republican rivals in a field in which Democrats have always been in an unfavorable position: Foreign policy and security. Although that is traditionally not the issue which determines elections, a series of recent successes is helping the President strengthen his personal image and accentuate the leadership vacuum existing in the opposition.
A survey by The Wall Street Journal and NBC shows that 61 percent of citizens support Obama’s foreign policy, which is a far cry from the 39 percent approval of his economic policy. A previous survey reflected that 64 percent of Americans supported Obama’s conduct against terrorism. Bad news for the White House appears in those surveys as well: Only six percent of potential voters are concerned about international problems.
Those data reveal a trend from several decades ago. The economy, not national security, is the issue that determines voters’ behavior, especially now that the country is suffering an unemployment rate of nine percent. However, foreign policy is a subject that contributes to the credibility of a candidate and, as a last resort, can tip the balance in one direction or the other in close elections.
There are previous examples of this. George H.W. Bush, who is renowned for his international leadership and for his success during the Gulf War, was defeated by Bill Clinton, who was inexperienced in that area, in a time when the economy was the prevailing factor as well. To some extent, Jimmy Carter’s loss to Ronald Reagan is due to the fiasco of the hostages’ rescue in Tehran.
Obama managed to build a winning candidacy in 2008 thanks partly to his refusal to vote for the Iraq war. This allowed him to become an alternative to Hillary Clinton, who had voted in favor of the invasion in Congress. Afterwards, he was able to elaborate a convincing platform in order to fight terrorism and modify the strategy in Afghanistan.
As President, Obama has also succeeded in bringing to an end some of the adventures he inherited from his predecessor. As columnist Thomas Friedman points out, Obama “has turned out to be so much more adept at implementing George W. Bush's foreign policy than Bush was, but he is less adept at implementing his own”.
Success of the Arab Spring
In effect, there have been no advances and even some backtracking regarding goals that this administration had, such as a solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict or the normalization of relations with Cuba. Nevertheless, the President has obtained a certain climate of cooperation with China and Russia and, above all, he could run in next year’s elections with a spectacular record in the fight against terrorism and the democratization of the Arab world. Osama bin Laden, Anwar al-Awlaki and Muammar Gadhafi are dead, al Qaida is on the ropes, three countries in the Middle East have ended their dictatorships, American soldiers will not be dying in Iraq after the end of this year and a date for withdrawal from Afghanistan has already been set.
John McCain, John Boehner and other Republicans in Congress have admitted these successes. However, none of the presidential candidates within the opposition know how to appropriately react to them, something which has caused distress in their own party. “Republican candidates have to fine-tune their foreign policy even more if they want to win,” warned historian and conservative analyst Lee Edwards, who wrote a well-known biography of Ronald Reagan.
Mitt Romney, who is the Republican candidate with the most potential, has stated that Obama’s decision to withdraw from Iraq, as well as confirming the date that Bush had agreed on with Iraqi authorities, “puts at risk the victories that were won through the blood and sacrifice of thousands of American men and women”. Both Romney and other candidates for the Republican primary elections agreed that Gadhafi’s death creates even more uncertainties.
After the primary elections it is going to be difficult for a conservative candidate to defend remaining in Iraq or to claim that Libya was better with Gadhafi. This does not give Obama a great lead with a view to his final victory, but it takes an asset away from the Republicans, an asset they have always had in order to conquer the White House. They are not the party that assures the security of this country from the foreign enemy anymore. All of their options are concentrated in the economy.
Next article![]( "The U.S. and Development of the Missile Defense Shield in the Persian Gulf")
