Dangerous dismissal of foreign policy experience in race for White House

Set aside the growing controversy over “anchor babies” and the Clinton email probe for a moment. The race for POTUS is a perilous void of foreign policy acumen, and voters are OK with that.

In a May 2015 Gallup poll, Americans were asked to rate a number of issues according to how important each topic was to their vote in the presidential election. Not surprisingly, 86 percent of those polled rated the economy extremely important/very important. What should be startling—but perhaps isn’t—is the degree to which Americans care about foreign policy expertise in the White House. In the May poll, only 61 percent rated foreign affairs extremely important/very important, with terrorism, healthcare, income distribution, and government operations in Washington all deemed more critical. 

{mosads}Despite living in an increasingly interdependent world, Americans seem largely detached from international challenges not named ISIS.

The presidential field itself reflects this lack of emphasis on the need for a seasoned diplomat in the oval office. Of the 22 candidates in the race, none are former ambassadors. Among the primary contenders, only former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton can reasonably tout a foreign policy background, although doing so would magnify her vulnerability on Benghazi. Currently polling in the low single digits, former Virginia Sen. Jim Webb (D) has sought to distinguish himself from the field by promoting his foreign policy credentials—a move which has yet to produce any observable progress.

Such a dearth of foreign policy experience exists among the GOP contenders that Sen. Lindsey Graham (S.C.) has positioned himself as the Republican candidate best versed on international affairs, citing his experience working on foreign relations in the Senate. Appearing at the Atlantic Council in July, Graham criticized President Obama, arguing that, “his foreign policy has been a disaster, and former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton was one of his chief architects.” Speaking of himself in the third person, Graham added that, “when it comes to foreign policy, Lindsey Graham offers a very clear and different path.” A path that is nevertheless devoid of meaningful experience on the international stage.

Lost in the tumult of the 2016 race is the obscured symbolism of Graham’s appearance at the Atlantic Council. In January 2014, the Atlantic Council chose Jon Huntsman to succeed former national security advisor Brent Scowcroft as chairman of the preeminent international affairs think tank. Some may remember that Huntsman ran as a Republican candidate in the 2012 election, but most will not: he never managed to escape single digit polling and dropped out shortly after the New Hampshire primary. Huntsman was the strongest foreign policy candidate in recent memory, with past posts including U.S. ambassador to China, U.S. ambassador to Singapore, deputy U.S. trade representative, and deputy assistant secretary of commerce to Asia. Despite coupling a strong foreign affairs resume with two popular terms as governor of Utah, Huntsman was among the least known names in the 2012 race, overshadowed by louder personalities like Herman Cain and Michelle Bachmann. 

The problem for candidates like Huntsman—and the crutch for candidates like Trump—is that Americans are concerned with foreign policy only when there exist unequivocal domestic ramifications.

This political climate is clearly reflected in the May Gallup poll, where terrorism and immigration rank ahead of foreign affairs in terms of criticality. The crisis in Crimea, the escalation in joint military exercises between Russia and China, and the building hostility between North Korea and South Korea are viewed by the public as abstract problems, too geographically distant to be considered matters of profound importance to an American president. But in a globalized world, these challenges have reverberations in the U.S. economy, and issues like terrorism and immigration float between the foreign and domestic policy arenas.

Tackling such multi-dimensional challenges relies on well-conceived foreign policy and an effective balance of soft and hard power in the most at-risk regions of the world. Smart power, as Joseph Nye calls it, is the invisible shield safeguarding the US from the vicissitudes of the 21^st century.

Building a wall along the border with Mexico or deploying American troops to seize oil fields in Iraq and Libya are not manifestations of smart power. Electing a candidate who fails to appreciate the nuances of foreign policy and oversimplifies complex problems is the hidden danger looming over the 2016 election.

North has previously written for the Hill. His work has also appeared in US News and World Report and the Asia Times Online.