Trump at G7 Meeting - August 2019; Pool/Reuters
Donald Trump’s handling of foreign policy issues has been inept. Issues like terrorism, cyberattacks, and trade show his ineptitude. Foreign policy issues provide Democrats with an opportunity to help defeat him. Defeating Trump is critical for addressing these foreign policy issues. Also, Trump is the bottleneck stopping us from using foreign policy to help solve domestic problems. Immigration, deindustrialization, and climate change are domestic issues. Nonetheless, they could benefit from foreign policy initiatives.
It is surprising that Democrats are unwilling to use foreign policy to help defeat Trump. Democrats seem reluctant to take advantage of foreign policy for three reasons. First, most of the candidates for the Democratic Presidential nomination lack foreign policy experience. Only Joe Biden has had any foreign policy experience. Biden’s foreign policy experience includes eight years as Vice-President in Barack Obama’s administration and 36 years as a member or Chair of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. The other leading candidates (Bernie Sanders, Elizabeth Warren, Pete Buttigieg, Amy Klobuchar, and Beto O’Rourke) have not had any foreign policy experience.
First, Democrats lack the system of think tanks and research foundations needed to develop and support a party’s foreign policy positions. This absence is due, in part, to the lack of support for Democratic foreign policy positions among defense industries. Contributions by the defense industries typically fund foreign policy think tanks and research foundations. And, after Vietnam and 19 years of war in the Middle East, the Democratic base identifies foreign policy as a back door to more failed military adventures. Democratic skepticism about military interventions has further eroded support within the defense industries.
Second, voters don’t usually reward politicians who highlight foreign policy issues. Presidential elections tend to be won or lost on domestic issues, rather than foreign policy issues. Of course, foreign policy can rise in importance when the U.S. is engaged in a war. And although the U.S. is involved in hostilities in the Middle East, many of the Presidential candidates see the issues fueling those hostilities as intractable. For example, the U.S. public does not want to maintain a military presence in Afghanistan for another 50 years. If the U.S. does not maintain such a presence, terrorism experts predict an increase in terrorism across the globe.
Third, many of the foreign policy problems that Trump has either failed to address or made worse were the result of decisions in which members of the Democratic leadership were complicit. Senator Robert Menendez, Ranking Member of the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations and Representative Eliot Engel, Chair of the House Foreign Affairs Committee have generally been hawks. They were also opposed to the Iran nuclear deal, along with Ranking Leader Chuck Schumer.
Despite their reluctance to address foreign policy issues, Democrats must do so. Foreign policy affects us both directly and indirectly. Directly, our foreign policy and national security posture will jeopardize our safety both abroad and at home. We have learned that terrorists can use territory they govern or region that is ungovernable for training to launch attacks against the U.S. The importance of safe havens for terrorist training has been a costly lesson that we should not forget.
In addition to terrorism, the U.S. must also be prepared to combat cyberattacks by countries hostile to the U.S. Russia has already begun cyberattacks on one of our critical democratic institutions – elections. Experts in the area of cyber warfare expect the rate of cyberattacks on U.S. institutions and vital organizations to increase. Countries like North Korea, Iran, and China, with both the expertise and motivation, can attack our institutions and organizations. These attacks can result in casualties and devastation to families.
Conducting trade with other countries can help increase the wealth of a nation. But unfair trade practices can severely undermine the countries subject to them. Uncalculated attempts to remedy unfair trade practices can lead to trade wars. And trade wars can have devastating economic effects.
Indirectly, foreign policy can affect our ability to solve our domestic problems. Immigration has been, and continues to be, necessary for the welfare of the U.S. Primarily, immigration fills gaps in our workforce. Asylum and immigration for humanitarian reasons and family reunification affirm our values and national identity. But the flow of immigrants to the U.S. must be regulated. We can make the regulation of immigration more straightforward and caring if we help better the conditions in the home countries of immigrants.
Regions of the U.S. have been deindustrialized. Manufacturers have determined wages, taxes, and regulations in foreign countries to be more beneficial to them than those in the U.S. The U.S. government can use tools like foreign assistance, trade agreements, and defense alliances to offset the potential benefits of relocation.
We can only address the adverse effects of global climate change by working with other countries. The U.S. cannot mitigate the impact of adverse weather events on our country without the cooperation of other countries. Other countries, however, expect the U.S. to lead. More than any other issue, climate change, shows the line separating from a foreign policy from domestic issues is disappearing.
In each of these areas affected by foreign policy, directly and indirectly, Trump has failed to achieve meaningful results. In the fight against terrorism, Trump claims to have destroyed ISIS. As a result of this claim, Trump has reduced or announced plans to the number of troops in Syria and Afghanistan. However, most experts in the area believe that ISIS still exists and is growing.
Despite Russia’s 2016 cyberattack against the U.S., Trump has refused to establish a comprehensive federal effort against current and future cyberattacks. Although several agencies have efforts to prevent cyberattacks, the lack of a unified effort has left the U.S. vulnerable.
Trump has endangered both the well-being of the U.S. and world economy by initiating a trade war with China. While China has certainly been guilty of fair-trade violations, Trump’s response has been unplanned and ad hoc. He has, for example, alienated potential partners in a confrontation with China.
Trump’s policies on immigration have resulted in an increased number of apprehensions along the southern border. This spike in apprehensions follows two decades of decline in apprehensions. Despite draconian attempts to stem this tide, Trump has failed. Trump’s failure seems to be, in part, a misdiagnosis of what is driving the increase. Widespread gang violence and food shortages due to drought in several countries are driving the growth. Trump has cut aid to the region and made the problem worse.
Trump has used threats and jawboning to stop the flight of manufacturing jobs overseas. He has failed to stem the tide. The tax cut legislation that Trump passed in 2018 had some incentives that could encourage the overseas movement of manufacturing jobs.
Trump denies climate change. Besides quitting the Paris Accords and rolling back environmental regulations, Trump has made no effort to address climate change.
Four of the leading seven candidates have made significant foreign policy pronouncements. Biden, Buttigieg, Sanders, and Warren promised or implied resuscitating the Iran nuclear deal and rejoining the Paris climate accord. They also pledged to end Trump’s destructive go-it-alone policies. While the four candidates did not agree on the specific policies with which they would replace Trump’s, they all espoused a foreign policy based on traditional U.S. values.
At first glance, one might think to highlight foreign policy would benefit Biden. But Biden’s lengthy foreign policy time in office may expose him to attacks. Other candidates besides Joe Biden, notably Elizabeth Warren, Bernie Sanders, Amy Klobuchar, Beto O’Rourke, and Pete Buttigieg, seem more than able to surround themselves with foreign policy sages. Expertise in foreign policy is not a requirement for President. Only the willingness to engage with foreign policy is required.
Once Trump vacates the Presidency, we will face additional problems or restoring normalcy and mending the broken pieces of our democratic republic. Trump has shattered government agencies, like the State Department and the Environmental Protection Agency. Trump has critically weakened the policies, regulations, and personnel of these agencies. The next President will need to fix them.
Also, Trump has weakened, undermined, or subverted the U.S. position in the world. Just as the next President will need to repair our domestic issues, our foreign policy posture must address the severe disputes that affect our international standing and alliances. Reaffirming or rejoining these alliances will probably not be enough to clean up Trump’s mess. All the Democratic candidates have shown a willingness to engage with foreign policy. Presumably, the nominee will also have the ability.
It is surprising that Democrats are unwilling to use foreign policy to help defeat Trump. Democrats seem reluctant to take advantage of foreign policy for three reasons. First, most of the candidates for the Democratic Presidential nomination lack foreign policy experience. Only Joe Biden has had any foreign policy experience. Biden’s foreign policy experience includes eight years as Vice-President in Barack Obama’s administration and 36 years as a member or Chair of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. The other leading candidates (Bernie Sanders, Elizabeth Warren, Pete Buttigieg, Amy Klobuchar, and Beto O’Rourke) have not had any foreign policy experience.
First, Democrats lack the system of think tanks and research foundations needed to develop and support a party’s foreign policy positions. This absence is due, in part, to the lack of support for Democratic foreign policy positions among defense industries. Contributions by the defense industries typically fund foreign policy think tanks and research foundations. And, after Vietnam and 19 years of war in the Middle East, the Democratic base identifies foreign policy as a back door to more failed military adventures. Democratic skepticism about military interventions has further eroded support within the defense industries.
Second, voters don’t usually reward politicians who highlight foreign policy issues. Presidential elections tend to be won or lost on domestic issues, rather than foreign policy issues. Of course, foreign policy can rise in importance when the U.S. is engaged in a war. And although the U.S. is involved in hostilities in the Middle East, many of the Presidential candidates see the issues fueling those hostilities as intractable. For example, the U.S. public does not want to maintain a military presence in Afghanistan for another 50 years. If the U.S. does not maintain such a presence, terrorism experts predict an increase in terrorism across the globe.
Third, many of the foreign policy problems that Trump has either failed to address or made worse were the result of decisions in which members of the Democratic leadership were complicit. Senator Robert Menendez, Ranking Member of the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations and Representative Eliot Engel, Chair of the House Foreign Affairs Committee have generally been hawks. They were also opposed to the Iran nuclear deal, along with Ranking Leader Chuck Schumer.
Despite their reluctance to address foreign policy issues, Democrats must do so. Foreign policy affects us both directly and indirectly. Directly, our foreign policy and national security posture will jeopardize our safety both abroad and at home. We have learned that terrorists can use territory they govern or region that is ungovernable for training to launch attacks against the U.S. The importance of safe havens for terrorist training has been a costly lesson that we should not forget.
In addition to terrorism, the U.S. must also be prepared to combat cyberattacks by countries hostile to the U.S. Russia has already begun cyberattacks on one of our critical democratic institutions – elections. Experts in the area of cyber warfare expect the rate of cyberattacks on U.S. institutions and vital organizations to increase. Countries like North Korea, Iran, and China, with both the expertise and motivation, can attack our institutions and organizations. These attacks can result in casualties and devastation to families.
Conducting trade with other countries can help increase the wealth of a nation. But unfair trade practices can severely undermine the countries subject to them. Uncalculated attempts to remedy unfair trade practices can lead to trade wars. And trade wars can have devastating economic effects.
Indirectly, foreign policy can affect our ability to solve our domestic problems. Immigration has been, and continues to be, necessary for the welfare of the U.S. Primarily, immigration fills gaps in our workforce. Asylum and immigration for humanitarian reasons and family reunification affirm our values and national identity. But the flow of immigrants to the U.S. must be regulated. We can make the regulation of immigration more straightforward and caring if we help better the conditions in the home countries of immigrants.
Regions of the U.S. have been deindustrialized. Manufacturers have determined wages, taxes, and regulations in foreign countries to be more beneficial to them than those in the U.S. The U.S. government can use tools like foreign assistance, trade agreements, and defense alliances to offset the potential benefits of relocation.
We can only address the adverse effects of global climate change by working with other countries. The U.S. cannot mitigate the impact of adverse weather events on our country without the cooperation of other countries. Other countries, however, expect the U.S. to lead. More than any other issue, climate change, shows the line separating from a foreign policy from domestic issues is disappearing.
In each of these areas affected by foreign policy, directly and indirectly, Trump has failed to achieve meaningful results. In the fight against terrorism, Trump claims to have destroyed ISIS. As a result of this claim, Trump has reduced or announced plans to the number of troops in Syria and Afghanistan. However, most experts in the area believe that ISIS still exists and is growing.
Despite Russia’s 2016 cyberattack against the U.S., Trump has refused to establish a comprehensive federal effort against current and future cyberattacks. Although several agencies have efforts to prevent cyberattacks, the lack of a unified effort has left the U.S. vulnerable.
Trump has endangered both the well-being of the U.S. and world economy by initiating a trade war with China. While China has certainly been guilty of fair-trade violations, Trump’s response has been unplanned and ad hoc. He has, for example, alienated potential partners in a confrontation with China.
Trump’s policies on immigration have resulted in an increased number of apprehensions along the southern border. This spike in apprehensions follows two decades of decline in apprehensions. Despite draconian attempts to stem this tide, Trump has failed. Trump’s failure seems to be, in part, a misdiagnosis of what is driving the increase. Widespread gang violence and food shortages due to drought in several countries are driving the growth. Trump has cut aid to the region and made the problem worse.
Trump has used threats and jawboning to stop the flight of manufacturing jobs overseas. He has failed to stem the tide. The tax cut legislation that Trump passed in 2018 had some incentives that could encourage the overseas movement of manufacturing jobs.
Trump denies climate change. Besides quitting the Paris Accords and rolling back environmental regulations, Trump has made no effort to address climate change.
Four of the leading seven candidates have made significant foreign policy pronouncements. Biden, Buttigieg, Sanders, and Warren promised or implied resuscitating the Iran nuclear deal and rejoining the Paris climate accord. They also pledged to end Trump’s destructive go-it-alone policies. While the four candidates did not agree on the specific policies with which they would replace Trump’s, they all espoused a foreign policy based on traditional U.S. values.
At first glance, one might think to highlight foreign policy would benefit Biden. But Biden’s lengthy foreign policy time in office may expose him to attacks. Other candidates besides Joe Biden, notably Elizabeth Warren, Bernie Sanders, Amy Klobuchar, Beto O’Rourke, and Pete Buttigieg, seem more than able to surround themselves with foreign policy sages. Expertise in foreign policy is not a requirement for President. Only the willingness to engage with foreign policy is required.
Once Trump vacates the Presidency, we will face additional problems or restoring normalcy and mending the broken pieces of our democratic republic. Trump has shattered government agencies, like the State Department and the Environmental Protection Agency. Trump has critically weakened the policies, regulations, and personnel of these agencies. The next President will need to fix them.
Also, Trump has weakened, undermined, or subverted the U.S. position in the world. Just as the next President will need to repair our domestic issues, our foreign policy posture must address the severe disputes that affect our international standing and alliances. Reaffirming or rejoining these alliances will probably not be enough to clean up Trump’s mess. All the Democratic candidates have shown a willingness to engage with foreign policy. Presumably, the nominee will also have the ability.