By Andrew Hammond
U.S. mid-term congressional contests usually center around domestic issues, yet as Joe Biden gave his first state-of-the-union address on Tuesday, the Russian invasion of Ukraine is increasingly bringing foreign policy into election year 2022.
Biden said in his big speech to Congress that "Putin's war was premeditated and unprovoked. Throughout our history we've learned this lesson ― when dictators do not pay a price for their aggression, they cause more chaos...and the cost and threats to America and the world keep rising."
It is rare, but by no means unprecedented, for international issues to become salient in U.S. campaigns. The year 2016 was one of these years when the high prominence of foreign policy was illustrated in a Pew survey that found 34 percent of the population believed such issues, especially tackling international terrorism, was then the biggest challenge facing the country. By contrast, "only" 23% mentioned economic problems.
That data showing a higher salience of foreign policy compared to economic issues resembles the first 25 years of the Cold War with the Soviet Union, from 1948 to 1972. Then, international security issues tended to dominate the concerns of U.S. voters during presidential campaigns.
By contrast, since the early 1970s, economic matters have tended to be the electorate's highest priority. For instance, just before the 2012 presidential election year, some 55 percent of U.S. citizens cited economic worries as the most important factor facing the country, according to Pew. By contrast, only 6 percent mentioned foreign policy or other international issues.
Whether or not foreign policy proves to be as salient for voters in 2022, as in 2016, there are a significant number of reasons why international affairs will be prominent this year. For East Europe is not the only region where foreign policy may impinge on the U.S. campaign. Also of interest is China and Iran whose actions are closely being monitored in Washington.
Add to this too the aftermath of the Afghan withdrawal. While many in the United States were lukewarm, or opposed to, the continued U.S. commitment to that nation, key mistakes were made in the botched withdrawal last year that has led to searching questions being asked about U.S. military power. While claims made at the time about the end of the "American era" of leadership were off-the-mark, U.S. soft power and moral credibility have taken a hit with allies from Asia-Pacific to the Americas. This is troublesome for Biden as he seeks to rebuild the global reputation of the United States after the travails of the Donald Trump era.
In this context, it is likely that Biden will put increased emphasis on foreign policy, especially following the massive Russian invasion into Ukraine. He is far from alone amongst U.S. presidents in doing so. For instance, Richard Nixon scored a string of international successes in the second half of his first term, including his landmark trip to China in February 1972 as his domestic agenda stalled, and he looked for a legacy abroad.
However, even if foreign and security policy now returns again to the forefront of the U.S. electorate's mind in 2022, there are significant differences between now and during the first two decades of the Cold War. This earlier period was characterized by a relative policy consensus and widespread bi-partisan cooperation on foreign and security matters.
Today, however, this policy area is significantly more divisive politically. To be sure, the early Cold War consensus can be overstated. Nonetheless, a significant degree of bipartisan agreement on foreign affairs, and wider political decorum, did exist until breaking apart in the late 1960s under the strain of the Vietnam War debacle and the demise of the notion of monolithic communism in light of the Sino-Soviet split.
No clear foreign and security policy consensus has emerged in recent years. For instance, many Republicans and Democrats differ significantly on how they view the power and standing of the United States internationally; on the degree to which the country should be unilateralist; in their attitudes toward the campaign on terrorism and the methods by which they are being fought; and on what the priorities of foreign policy should be.
Take the example of U.S. Representative Mario Diaz Balart, a Republican congressman from Florida, who released a statement this week calling the world "a much more dangerous place today than before Biden took office…after Afghanistan, Ukraine, and negotiations toward an Iran deal, I shudder at the thought of three more years of incompetence, weakness, and appeasement from the current administration." Far from rallying-around-the-flag at a time of geopolitical tension, he even claimed that the current tensions in East Europe stemmed from "the results of a feckless U.S. foreign policy of appeasement."
Especially with Russia's incursion into Ukraine, the salience of foreign and security issues could therefore become an increasingly important aspect of U.S. politics for the rest of the election year. And the partisan splits on these topics will reinforce high rates of political polarization in the U.S. electorate, and also potential global interest in the congressional mid-term elections race to boot.
Andrew Hammond (andrewkorea@outlook.com) is an associate at LSE IDEAS at the London School of Economics.
 |
Biden said in his big speech to Congress that "Putin's war was premeditated and unprovoked. Throughout our history we've learned this lesson ― when dictators do not pay a price for their aggression, they cause more chaos...and the cost and threats to America and the world keep rising."
It is rare, but by no means unprecedented, for international issues to become salient in U.S. campaigns. The year 2016 was one of these years when the high prominence of foreign policy was illustrated in a Pew survey that found 34 percent of the population believed such issues, especially tackling international terrorism, was then the biggest challenge facing the country. By contrast, "only" 23% mentioned economic problems.
That data showing a higher salience of foreign policy compared to economic issues resembles the first 25 years of the Cold War with the Soviet Union, from 1948 to 1972. Then, international security issues tended to dominate the concerns of U.S. voters during presidential campaigns.
By contrast, since the early 1970s, economic matters have tended to be the electorate's highest priority. For instance, just before the 2012 presidential election year, some 55 percent of U.S. citizens cited economic worries as the most important factor facing the country, according to Pew. By contrast, only 6 percent mentioned foreign policy or other international issues.
Whether or not foreign policy proves to be as salient for voters in 2022, as in 2016, there are a significant number of reasons why international affairs will be prominent this year. For East Europe is not the only region where foreign policy may impinge on the U.S. campaign. Also of interest is China and Iran whose actions are closely being monitored in Washington.
Add to this too the aftermath of the Afghan withdrawal. While many in the United States were lukewarm, or opposed to, the continued U.S. commitment to that nation, key mistakes were made in the botched withdrawal last year that has led to searching questions being asked about U.S. military power. While claims made at the time about the end of the "American era" of leadership were off-the-mark, U.S. soft power and moral credibility have taken a hit with allies from Asia-Pacific to the Americas. This is troublesome for Biden as he seeks to rebuild the global reputation of the United States after the travails of the Donald Trump era.
In this context, it is likely that Biden will put increased emphasis on foreign policy, especially following the massive Russian invasion into Ukraine. He is far from alone amongst U.S. presidents in doing so. For instance, Richard Nixon scored a string of international successes in the second half of his first term, including his landmark trip to China in February 1972 as his domestic agenda stalled, and he looked for a legacy abroad.
However, even if foreign and security policy now returns again to the forefront of the U.S. electorate's mind in 2022, there are significant differences between now and during the first two decades of the Cold War. This earlier period was characterized by a relative policy consensus and widespread bi-partisan cooperation on foreign and security matters.
Today, however, this policy area is significantly more divisive politically. To be sure, the early Cold War consensus can be overstated. Nonetheless, a significant degree of bipartisan agreement on foreign affairs, and wider political decorum, did exist until breaking apart in the late 1960s under the strain of the Vietnam War debacle and the demise of the notion of monolithic communism in light of the Sino-Soviet split.
No clear foreign and security policy consensus has emerged in recent years. For instance, many Republicans and Democrats differ significantly on how they view the power and standing of the United States internationally; on the degree to which the country should be unilateralist; in their attitudes toward the campaign on terrorism and the methods by which they are being fought; and on what the priorities of foreign policy should be.
Take the example of U.S. Representative Mario Diaz Balart, a Republican congressman from Florida, who released a statement this week calling the world "a much more dangerous place today than before Biden took office…after Afghanistan, Ukraine, and negotiations toward an Iran deal, I shudder at the thought of three more years of incompetence, weakness, and appeasement from the current administration." Far from rallying-around-the-flag at a time of geopolitical tension, he even claimed that the current tensions in East Europe stemmed from "the results of a feckless U.S. foreign policy of appeasement."
Especially with Russia's incursion into Ukraine, the salience of foreign and security issues could therefore become an increasingly important aspect of U.S. politics for the rest of the election year. And the partisan splits on these topics will reinforce high rates of political polarization in the U.S. electorate, and also potential global interest in the congressional mid-term elections race to boot.
Andrew Hammond (andrewkorea@outlook.com) is an associate at LSE IDEAS at the London School of Economics.
![[ANALYSIS] Pandemic awakens demand for data-driven automation](https://img.koreatimes.co.kr/upload/thumbnailV2/2b05d621a193420abef7ee24b95eab3d.jpg/dims/resize/178/optimize)
