While in certain
spheres of political rhetoric, the Overton window has expanded in the past
decade—opening the field to new ideas and programs—the permissibility of
philosophies within the foreign policy realm has noticeably narrowed. One of
the more obvious trends is general disillusion with America’s ability to enact
positive, democratic change through intervention. Recent presidential
administrations and the 2016 presidential campaign displayed an increased lack
of political interest to discuss and engage in foreign military ventures.
Today, this rhetoric continues to play out in the 2020 presidential campaign.
During
his two terms in office, President Barack Obama displayed an aversion to
military engagement abroad for democracy promotion, a departure from the Bush
Doctrine, which argued that it is in the United States’ best interest to
transform non-democratic institutions into democracies. As president, Obama fought against the more
interventionalist wing within his cabinet, and viewed his refusal to adhere to
his “red-line” against Syria’s President Bashar Al-Assad’s use of chemical
weapons (and instead asked Congress to authorize the use of military force) as
a victory against “the Washington playbook” that he alleged prescribed specific policy
responses to foreign actions. Instead of pursuing international policies
autonomous of other countries/institutions, Obama sought to strengthen regional
alliances and forge local partnerships where the United States could take a
supporting role.
President
Donald Trump’s successful campaign for the presidency in 2016 also contained a
more isolationist standpoint. During his foreign
policy speech in August 2016 in Youngstown, Ohio, then-candidate Trump criticized
and promised to terminate America’s foreign policy strategy of nation building
and regime change. Quoting a prior comment that he made regarding Iraq in 2004,
Trump argued that America’s invasion was as mistake and criticized the belief
that America’s intervention could transition the country into a democracy,
stating:
Look at the war in Iraq and the mess
that we're in. I would never have handled it that way. Does anybody really
believe that Iraq is going to be a wonderful democracy where people are going
to run down to the voting box and gently put in their ballot and the winner is
happily going to step up to lead the country? C'mon.
Trump also
criticized President Obama and then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s
attempt to advocate for a democracy in Libya and for regime changes in Syria
and Egypt during the Arab Spring.
While
President Donald Trump has struggled to create a consistent foreign policy
vision, he has maintained some of his unwillingness for foreign military
engagements. During his State of the Union address in 2019, Trump stated that
he fulfilled his pledge to end America’s “endless
wars” in Iraq and Syria. In December 2018 Trump argued that the United
States can no longer afford to be the world’s policeman
and has claimed that he
does not want a war with Iran. While Trump’s foreign policy is littered
with contradictions, it bears noting that rhetorically Trump has attempted to
maintain a less interventionalist stance as president.
Many of the
2020 Democrat presidential candidates are following a less interventionalist
rhetorical stance. Those that have articulated a foreign policy strategy have
argued for diversifying America’s response to foreign crises. Massachusetts
Representative Seth Moulton, former Vice President Joe Biden and New York
Senator Kirsten Gillibrand, as well as others have condemned the United States’
use of American military force in lieu of other tactics (foreign aid,
diplomacy, etc.). Democrats’ strategy for tackling international threats
through a multidisciplinary strategy is not a new talking-point in Congress. In
2017, Connecticut Senator Chris Murphy released “Rethinking the
Battlefield” which argued for investing in “smart power,” such as
diplomacy, economic development, and humanitarian assistance.
Massachusetts
Senator Elizabeth Warren formed much of the mainstream Democrat foreign policy
debate in an article she wrote for Foreign Affairs in November 2018. In
it, she criticized prior presidential administrations’ interventionalist
attitudes and asks for a reevaluation of how America’s interests are satisfied
with troops in conflict zones, such as Afghanistan and Iraq (notably, an entire
section of her article is titled “Ending Endless War”). Warren echoes many of
her Democrat colleagues by arguing for a reduction in defense spending, greater
investment in the State Department, and the need to bolster alliances.
The trauma
from the conflicts in the Middle East continue to reverberate in politics today.
This trend of rhetoric stretched from the Obama administration, to the Trump
administration, and into the intervening presidential campaign. Today, Democrats
are less willing to claim that they would intervene in crises abroad, and
instead argue for a more diversified strategic toolkit. In addition, many of
the Democrat candidates are arguing for new Authorizations for the Use of
American Force from Congress to check presidential powers. While new AUMFs
would allow Congress to reassert its power over war-making activities, this
also restrains the executive branch’s ability to deploy troops abroad (and,
consequently, spreads political criticism of executive actions towards other
branches of government).
Foreign
policy is typically pushed to the sidelines of presidential political debate,
and with increased skepticism regarding America’s ability to enact positive change
on the world stage, candidates are less likely to tout a foreign policy with
interventionalist rhetoric. At the same time, Democrat candidates appear to be
betting that running a campaign on subjects such as healthcare, climate change
and infrastructure will earn them greater popularity than discussing foreign
policy. The way that Democrat candidates are so closely aligned on foreign
policy issues today indicates that they may prefer for foreign policy to stay
in the backdrop of the 2020 elections.
The Overton window, contrived by Joseph
Overton, describes the boundaries of publicly-permitted ideas on topics. The
2020 elections, both for the presidency as well as for the House of
Representatives, are showing marked departures from normal political discourse.
From health care, to gender, to privacy and the environment, new ideas and
topics are being tested on the electorate.
