How foreign policy shapes US presidential elections

In a thought-provoking article from Foreign Affairs, the complexities of foreign policy in U.S. presidential elections are dissected, particularly in light of the upcoming 2024 race.

The piece highlights how, despite the long-standing belief that domestic issues, especially the economy, dominate electoral outcomes, foreign policy remains a critical component of candidates' appeal. As the article notes, polling indicates that while many voters prioritize economic concerns, they also yearn for strong leadership on the global stage, especially during turbulent times.

Historically, candidates have recognized that their image as decisive leaders can significantly influence voter perceptions. For instance, during the 1952 election, Dwight Eisenhower leveraged his military credentials to assure voters of his capability to handle the Korean War, even without detailed plans. Similarly, Richard Nixon’s vague promise of “peace with honor” in Vietnam resonated with voters who perceived him as a stronger leader, despite a lack of clarity regarding his actual strategy.

The article argues that this pattern persists today, as foreign policy continues to factor into voters' evaluations of candidates. For example, the author points to how Kamala Harris must navigate her stance on international affairs to present herself as a formidable leader against Donald Trump, who has effectively crafted a narrative of toughness, particularly regarding China and Ukraine. This dynamic illustrates that even amid pressing domestic issues, candidates must showcase their readiness to lead on the international front.

Moreover, the influence of electoral pressures on incumbent presidents is underscored. The Biden administration’s cautious approach to Israel's military actions reflects an awareness of the potential backlash from Democratic voters concerned about foreign policy. As such, elections shape not only candidates' strategies but also the foreign policy landscape itself, often constraining leaders' decisions based on political calculations rather than purely national interests.

Ultimately, the article compellingly argues that while the economy will undoubtedly be a key issue in the upcoming election, neglecting the role of foreign policy would be a grave oversight. As the U.S. grapples with significant global challenges, the 2024 election may hinge as much on perceptions of leadership and international competence as on bread-and-butter economic issues. The article serves as a reminder that in the arena of presidential politics, the adage “It’s the economy, stupid” may overlook the nuanced interplay between domestic and foreign policy concerns.

By Vugar Khalilov