30 October 2006
Foreign Policy Issues Drive Candidates in 2006 Midterm Elections
Democrats and Republicans grapple with same concerns, differently
Washington -- Midterm elections in the United States attract attention when the stakes are high, as they are in 2006, and foreign policy issues are significant for both major political parties.
In this fractious atmosphere, all 435 seats in the House of Representatives and one-third of the Senate seats are being contested, and 36 states will elect governors. The elections could change the political control of Congress.
The 2006 midterms are noteworthy not only because control of Congress might be tipped from one party to the other, but also because they are the first elections in many years in which the key issues driving campaigns involve U.S. foreign policy, including the war in Iraq and the war on terrorism. In addition, important domestic concerns are linked to foreign policy, such as energy supplies and homeland security.
Issues dominant in minds of Americans demand attention of both political parties, but each party has its own approach. Democrats might emphasize an issue that Republicans downplay. Sometimes an issue is so powerful, it cannot be ignored.
REFERENDUM ON THE PRESIDENT?
Larry Sabato, director of the University of Virginia’s Center for Politics, summed it up for the Washington File: “The 2006 election revolves around President Bush and the Iraq War.”
Each party criticizes the other for perceived policy faults. Republican candidates “are sticking to Bush’s prescription for Iraq, while Democrats stress that the U.S. shouldn’t have gone and should get out -- though with no timetable mentioned,” he said. Democrats highlight corruption in Congress while Republicans summon the specter of liberalism that would haunt Congress if the Democrats took over.
“The truth is, both parties are capitalistic, both support a fiscally responsible balanced budget in theory but not reality, and both are strongly opposed to terrorism,” Sabato said. “On social issues,” he added, “they couldn’t be farther apart.”
Robert J. Lieber, professor of government and international affairs at Georgetown University, summarized the Democratic campaign theme as “there is a need for change,” and said Democrats “are critical of what they perceive as the shortcomings of the Bush administration’s foreign policy.” They also want certain domestic economic reforms.
Lieber told the Washington File that the Republicans “are emphasizing security and the war on terrorism and arguing that the Democrats lack the fortitude and resoluteness to deal with what are lethal threats internationally.
“It’s also interesting that although Democrats are critical of Iraq, they are not arguing for an immediate withdrawal of U.S. and coalition forces. They are arguing for various kinds of recalibration or limited withdrawals or redeployments, but most of the Democratic candidates recognize that a complete withdrawal would be likely to cause an even worse situation than now exists,” he said.
ECONOMY, INCUMBANCY AND IMMIGRATION
Besides underscoring the importance of the War on Terror, Republicans are relying on “pretty good numbers about economic growth, the stock market and competitiveness,” Lieber said. The Democrats counter that the war in Iraq is costly and poorly conducted and that “the economic gains have been too concentrated among the well-to-do.”
Lieber added that Democrats also are “operating on what is a classic approach in two-party politics in America over the centuries, which is the theme of ‘throw the rascals out.’” The longer a party is in office, the more likely it is to have implemented contentious policies that increase a dissatisfied public’s desire for change.
Some political experts expected immigration, an issue that straddles foreign and domestic policy, to be a bigger campaign issue than it has become. That lack of emphasis is “in part because the parties are divided,” Lieber said. “Immigration is a complex issue that cuts in various ways, and there has not been a consensus in either party about how to deal with it.”
Lieber concurred with Sabato that the election is partly about Bush: “The Democrats have sought to make the election a referendum on the Bush presidency,” counting on his low approval ratings in the polls. But, as Lieber pointed out, “especially for the House of Representatives, it’s 435 separate elections, not an election about the Bush presidency per se.”
The Republicans are reaching out to these smaller constituencies. “Specific issues to each district in each state are of most importance,” Republican National Committee spokesman Josh Holmes told the Washington File. “Iowa has a different set of issues that concern the constituency than Arizona.” But broadly, he said, the most important issues to Republicans are “taxes and economy and national security.” The last includes domestic matters such as terrorist surveillance programs, interrogation and detainee legislation, and missile defense.
But events can change perceptions of the electorate. “After the end of the Cold War, foreign policy dropped off the charts in terms of its salience or importance in American politics,” Lieber said. These issues often swayed voters during the Cold War, but declined in importance afterward. Foreign policy gained more traction than moral or social issues after the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks.
“There are reasons to believe that foreign policy remains significant and again may loom large as voters weigh what to do,” he said.
POTENTIAL EFFECTS OF A CHANGE IN POLITICAL CONTROL OF CONGRESS
What will happen after the election? “You have to separate rhetoric from reality,” Lieber said. If the Democrats win control of one or both chambers of Congress, the control of the government -- Congress and the White House -- would be divided politically. “That’s not unusual. Roughly half the time over the last several decades we have had divided government,” he said, citing the Clinton and Reagan administrations as examples.
“The Democrats can get something passed in the House, but if they don’t control the Senate they are not likely to get it passed there, and ultimately even if they got both houses, the president has the ability to veto,” he said. George Bush has used his veto power once in six years, with Congress under Republican control; with an opposition-dominated Congress, Clinton used his veto power 37 times and Reagan used his 78 times.
Under such conditions, Lieber said, “Democrats have the power to publicize, investigate through the so-called oversight process, propose legislation.” For the president, success would depend on his ability to work on a bipartisan basis.
“Partisan differences about foreign policy now are greater than they were in the Vietnam War,” Lieber said. “Whether it will be possible to gain bipartisan cooperation, particularly given the abrasive personalities of congressional leaders on both sides, remains to be seen.”
“Republicans will want to support President Bush on most items, as they always have,” Sabato said. “Bush will set the agenda.” Should the Democrats gain the upper hand, they “will immediately pass an increase in the minimum wage and stronger lobbying rules.” He agreed that Bush “will use his veto frequently, and not much will get done, at least on the big, divisive issues.”
“Gridlock is not necessarily a bad thing,” Sabato said. “It limits government and party excesses.”
For additional information, see 2006 Midterm Elections.
(The Washington File is a product of the Bureau of International Information Programs, U.S. Department of State. Web site: http://usinfo.state.gov)
