Bush boon or albatross?
Daily casualty reports from Iraq and high unemployment bode ill for US President George W Bush's re-election chances, writes David Dumke*
Because of 11 September, foreign policy offers United States President George W Bush the opportunity to demonstrate leadership in a time of crisis. Robust leadership no doubt strengthens the president's domestic political standing, and makes securing a second term more likely. But mishandling these issues, especially now, could prove fatal to Bush.
While it is too early to forecast, the current combination of daily casualty reports and high unemployment bodes ill for the president's re-election chances.
In the past, so long as Americans felt secure -- whether under a Cold War or post-Cold War configuration -- foreign policy questions were nary mentioned on the campaign trail. More important were bread and butter issues, like taxes, schools, and jobs. "It's the economy, stupid," noted Bill Clinton's chief strategist, James Carville, throughout the 1992 election that resulted in the defeat of President George H W Bush, who to no avail touted his foreign policy gravitas.
To understand the American electorate one must recognise that Americans are by and large isolationist, or think of themselves as such. They live in a country that can feed itself and is protected not only by a beefy military, but also the Atlantic and Pacific Oceans. It may be an interdependent world connected by vast trade and diplomatic links, but this has not registered in the mind of the average American voter. The proverbial John Doe knows the world is out there, but it's not here. It has not greatly influenced his life, at least noticeably. He is, or was, safe in Fortress America.
Foreign policy triumphs do not greatly help American presidents politically. Missteps, on the other hand, by themselves typically do not directly jeopardise their chances of re- election. But errors abroad do tend to raise serious questions about overall job competence, often leading to serious critiques about domestic policy. And successful or otherwise, too much time devoted to overseas issues while neglecting the homefront can prove perilous.
While temporarily boosting his image, the historic Camp David Accords did little to negate Jimmy Carter's image as a weak leader. But Carter's domestic political liabilities -- most related to the disastrous state of the American economy -- were greatly amplified by the Iran hostage crisis and the perception of his inept handling of that crisis. The foreign policy issues facing Carter were not the most pressing issues on the minds of Americans in 1980, but his handling of Iran led voters to question his ability to handle domestic concerns. His international successes were overshadowed by his most notable failure, and limited his political shelf life.
In the wake of Desert Storm in 1991, few thought George H W Bush would lose, let alone to a relatively unknown governor from Arkansas. Bush, after all, presided over the fall of the Soviet Union, won wars against Saddam Hussein and Manuel Noriega, and moved the Middle East peace process forward. But while Bush worked his "magic" on the global scene, the American economy flagged. Most Americans acknowledged his international prowess, but Bush was seen as out of touch with Americans, unaware of the issues that really mattered to the electorate.
So it goes throughout modern American history. Though Lyndon Johnson crafted the popular Great Society social programmes and oversaw the passage of landmark civil rights legislation, Vietnam's unpopularity ended his exceptional political career. Much revered by Americans today, Korea was political suicide for Harry Truman and left him woefully unpopular. Herbert Hoover's expertise about international trade and aid amounted for little in the face of the Great Depression.
While all this looks ominous to George W Bush, history bares witness to a caveat. Rules tend to change in times of national crisis. The outbreak of World War II altered the American political equation significantly, because like today, Americans were deeply concerned about their security. It should be remembered that Franklin Roosevelt won an unprecedented third, then fourth term because Americans were confident in his leadership during World War II. Roosevelt's 1940 and 1944 electoral victories were in defiance of an unwritten but previously respected two-term limit established by George Washington.
Without question, the rules governing American foreign policy and electoral politics have changed, at least temporarily. The 11 September 2001 attack on New York and Washington drastically altered the American political climate. As incredible as it may seem to many both outside America and within it, foreign policy is still an asset to President Bush. Politically, the fear of terrorism and post-9/11 hyper-patriotism resulted in an astronomical leap in support for Bush. It still buoys him up and grants him enormous political capital. Each "bleep" on the foreign policy radar -- whether it is the invasion of Afghanistan or Iraq, the arrest of "sleeper" agents in the US, or a "code red" warning about a possible terrorist strike -- results in an upsurge of "rally 'round the flag" support for Bush.
Of course, all this could change. Americans, after all, supported Roosevelt politically while they were overwhelmingly in favour of America continuing the fight in World War II. Over the past two months, a growing chorus of Americans have come to believe the Bush administration has made serious miscalculations in its handling of foreign policy. Many openly speculate as to whether the United States is winning in Iraq, let alone the war on terror. As casualties in Iraq mount and with the spectre of Osama Bin Laden still looming large, Bush's overall performance is being questioned. It remains to be seen, however, whether foreign policy will prove to be a boon or an albatross to George W Bush in 2004.
* The writer serves as principal of the MidAmr Group, which works to improve US relations with the Arab world.
Al-Ahram Weekly Online : 18 - 24 September 2003 (Issue No. 656)
Located at: http://weekly.ahram.org.eg/2003/656/in5.htm