The Campaign of 1812 was the first presidential campaign conducted during wartime. The ongoing war between France, Britain, and other European powers had created sharp sectional divisions in the United States. A bloc of congressional war hawks, primarily from the South and the West, saw the European conflict as an opportunity to expand American power at the expense of British Canada and Spanish Florida, and they lobbied then-president James Madison for a declaration of war against Britain. Needing the support of the war hawks to obtain the Democratic-Republican nomination, Madison aligned himself with the hawks, and in June 1812, Madison asked Congress to declare war against Britain.
Rumors of war with Mexico over the annexation of Texas loomed over the Campaign of 1844. James K. Polk, the Democratic nominee, was a vocal advocate of the doctrine of manifest destiny. The Democratic platform endorsed the annexation of Texas and supported territorial claims to the whole of the Oregon Territory. The Whigs nominated Henry Clay, who opposed war with Mexico, fearing that it would undermine the nation’s precarious sectional balance of power.
Polk turned the election into a referendum on the annexation of Texas. Democrats effectively used the slogans “Polk, Dallas, Texas, Oregon and the Tariff of ’42,” “Fifty-four Forty or Fight,” and similar slogans to propel Polk to a stunning dark-horse upset over the statesmanlike Clay. Texas was annexed, and war soon followed. A treaty with Britain diplomatically settled the ongoing dispute over the Oregon Territory.
The future of the Union itself became the central issue of the Campaign of 1860. Demanding an end to the expansion of slavery, the fledgling Republican Party nominated Representative Abraham Lincoln of Illinois, long on record as critical of the “peculiar institution.” Pro-slavery southern secessionists warned that the election of Lincoln would result in the dissolution of the Union. Supporters of Northern Democrat Stephen Douglas used the slogan “Douglas and Johnson: The Union Now and Forever” to frame the election as a referendum on preserving the Union rather than as a referendum on slavery. John Bell’s Southern Constitutional Union Party borrowed a phrase from Daniel Webster in proclaiming the principle “Liberty and Union Now and Forever One and Inseparable. No North, No South, No East, No West, Nothing but the Union.” Southern Democrat John C. Breckinridge represented the pro-slavery faction of his party. The result of this election forever transformed American society at all levels: politically, socially, economically, culturally, and morally. Lincoln and the Republicans won a plurality of the popular vote but a bare majority of the Electoral College vote, and by the spring of 1861, the nation’s sectional divisions had descended into a civil war.
By the Campaign of 1864, Lincoln’s reelection prospects were threatened by growing northern disenchantment over the painfully slow progress of the war. The Northern Democratic Party nominated Lincoln’s former commander of the Army of the Potomac, General George B. McClellan, and its platform attacked Lincoln for allegedly using his war powers to abridge the constitutional rights of citizens. Burdened with the demands of executing a war and running for reelection, Republicans relied on slogans such as “Don’t Change Horses in Mid-Stream” to persuade northern voters to stand with the president, and to imply the risks involved in selecting new political leadership during a national crisis. In the end, a string of Union victories beginning with Gettysburg turned the electoral tide in Lincoln’s favor, and the Republicans won with ease in November.
While the Democratic and Republican parties were not divided in the run-up to the Spanish-American War, by the Campaign of 1900, many in the Democratic Party had turned against imperialism and opposed the Treaty of Paris that would bring the war to a close (Democratic nominee William Jennings Bryan, however, was not among them). Bryan later criticized McKinley during the campaign for not liberating the Philippines as he had liberated Cuba. By continuing its policies of territorial expansion, the United States came to exercise power over subjects far removed from its own borders, in locations as far-flung as Guam and the Philippine Islands. In addition to the moral dilemmas posed by imperialism (namely, the imposition of foreign rule by a government ostensibly committed to self-determination), the maintenance and security of these new territories required extensive defense commitments that not only were expensive but also taxed the nation’s commitment to neutrality in foreign conflicts. In response to the 1914 outbreak of World War I in Europe, President Woodrow Wilson declared that the United States would adhere to a policy of strict neutrality in order to avoid being drawn into the Great War. On August 19, Wilson delivered an address to Congress, offering a Declaration of Neutrality: “The effect of the war upon the United States will depend upon what American citizens say and do. Every man who really loves America will act and speak in the true spirit of neutrality, which is the spirit of impartiality and fairness and friendliness to all concerned. The spirit of the nation in this critical matter will be determined largely by what individuals and society and those gathered in public meetings do and say, upon what newspapers and magazines contain, upon what ministers utter in their pulpits, and men proclaim as their opinions upon the street.”
Early in 1916, Germany notified the world that it reserved the right to sink any ship approaching Britain. The United States announced, in turn, that it would not tolerate the sinking of any neutral vessel. Then, on May 7, 1916, a German U-boat sank the British steamship Lusitania, resulting in a loss of one hundred American lives. The U.S. reaction to the Lusitania’s sinking forced Germany to revoke its blockade. The Democratic Party and Woodrow Wilson turned the Campaign of 1916 into a referendum on Wilson’s neutrality policy. Peace slogans used by the Wilson campaign included “He Kept Us Out of War,” “War in the East, Peace in the West, Thank God for Woodrow Wilson,” and “War in Europe, Peace in America.”
Controversy within the Republican Party over the neutrality issue complicated efforts by Charles Evans Hughes to convince voters that he had no intention of getting the United States involved in the conflict. Former Republican president Theodore Roosevelt publicly lobbied for the United States to enter the war on the side of the Triple Entente: Great Britain, France, and Russia. Strong isolationist sentiment in regions beyond the Northeast helped Wilson return for a second term. But by late 1917, the United States was nonetheless drawn into World War I.
The Campaign of 1940 found the United States confronting the prospect of another world war. In Europe, Nazi Germany had swiftly and astonishingly defeated Poland and France, threatening an invasion of Great Britain. In the Pacific, Imperial Japan waged a war on China and seemed intent on extending its sphere of influence over all of East Asia and the Pacific Ocean. Given the exigency of the moment, popular president Franklin Delano Roosevelt wrestled with a decision to run for an unprecedented third term, defying the venerable two-term tradition established by George Washington.
Roosevelt also faced strong isolationist sentiment reminiscent of 1916. Roosevelt’s decision to seek a third term, not his efforts to help Great Britain fight off Nazi Germany, turned out to be the main issue of the 1940 presidential campaign. Throughout the 1940 campaign, supporters of Wendell Willkie, the Republican nominee, chanted, “No Third Term.” As a result, the Roosevelt campaign devoted most of its energy to rebutting Republican allegations that the election of Roosevelt would start the nation on the road toward dictatorship. Roosevelt also stressed that by providing Britain the tools to combat Nazi Germany, it was much less likely that the United States would become embroiled in another war. Roosevelt promoted the United States as the “Arsenal of Democracy,” which boosted American industry, mitigating some of the economic distress of the lingering Great Depression. Americans backed Roosevelt once again for a third term.
The Campaign of 1944 constituted the first wartime presidential election since the Campaign of 1864. Taking a page from Lincoln’s 1864 campaign, Democrats advised Americans to “Never Swap Horses in Midstream,” defusing the fourth-term issue. Thomas E. Dewey, the Republican candidate, failed to convince the American public that the election of Roosevelt to a fourth term would deliver the country to a homegrown dictator. Dewey also failed to convince voters that his administration would more quickly achieve victory in the ongoing war.
With the Campaign of 1952, the United States was locked in a military stalemate on the Korean Peninsula. An arms race with Stalin’s Soviet Union intensified a dangerous world climate. Republican candidate General Dwight Eisenhower proved a credible candidate capable of dealing with crisis abroad. His opponent, Adlai Stevenson, a New Deal Democrat, was an able leader who emphasized the domestic legacy of his predecessors. The Stevenson campaign reminded voters that “You Never Had It So Good” under Roosevelt’s New Deal, but the revered war hero overwhelmed Stevenson’s otherwise solid credentials.
Between the 1952 election and the Campaign of 1960, persistent and intense Cold War competition with the Soviet Union and Communist China forced presidential campaigns to devote considerable time and energy to national security issues. Republican nominee Vice President Richard Nixon relied heavily on his experience to persuade voters that he was more qualified to be president than the Democratic presidential candidate, Massachusetts senator John F. Kennedy. With slogans such as “Experience Counts” and “Keep America Strong,” Nixon attempted to overshadow the young senator’s inexperience. The Kennedy campaign countered with a new vision for the United States. At the same time, the Kennedy campaign attempted to close the experience gap by alleging the existence of a missile gap to the advantage of the Soviets. Kennedy’s insistence that if elected president he would close the missile gap helped to reassure the public that Kennedy had the strength to deal with foreign threats. Kennedy won, but after the election, it became apparent that a missile gap never really existed.
Vice President Lyndon Johnson assumed the presidency in November 1963 upon the shocking assassination of President Kennedy. Johnson also was compelled to deal with war and peace, and in depicting Republican candidate Barry Goldwater as an unpredictable war hawk. LBJ won the November election in the biggest landslide since Franklin Roosevelt. Taking advantage of Goldwater’s controversial positions on Vietnam and the feasibility of using nuclear weapons to achieve a tactical military victory, the Johnson campaign characterized Goldwater as an extremist. Johnson became the candidate for peace, an effective stance given the dangers of nuclear warfare. “The Stakes Are Too High for You to Stay Home” became a compelling slogan in Johnson’s campaign.
From November 1964 through 1967, American involvement in the Vietnam War escalated. Against his 1964 campaign pledge, President Johnson deployed hundreds of thousands of troops to the conflict. The antiwar movement gathered strength in the lead-up to the 1968 election, providing momentum to the idealistic campaign of Minnesota senator Eugene McCarthy, who ultimately deflated Johnson’s reelection hopes by nearly defeating the president in the critical New Hampshire primary. In late March, Johnson withdrew from the race, and shortly thereafter Vice President Hubert Humphrey and Senator Robert Kennedy joined the contest for the Democratic nomination. With his victory in the California primary, Robert Kennedy became the front-runner for the nomination, a fleeting moment of triumph violently obliterated by an assassin’s bullet even while partisans celebrated the victory.
With the party in disarray, having lost the incumbent Johnson and the charismatic Kennedy, thousands of antiwar demonstrators descended upon the Democratic summer convention in Chicago. Rioting roiled the streets of Chicago while Humphrey received the nomination. Republicans turned to Richard Nixon, who claimed to hold a secret plan for ending U.S. involvement in the war. In a series of well-crafted ads, Nixon’s campaign promised to lead the nation out of the turmoil of the 1960s and into the brighter decade ahead. “This Time Vote Like Your Whole World Depended on It” became one of the key slogans for the Nixon campaign. There is some evidence that candidate Nixon may have interfered with President Johnson’s peace negotiations with the government in Hanoi to forestall any political momentum that could have been gained by Humphrey as a result.
Once elected, Nixon failed to end the conflict in Vietnam, instead expanding it into Cambodia. In his 1972 reelection campaign, Nixon stressed “peace with honor” in Vietnam, and emphasized his program of “Vietnamization” as means to reduce, but not eliminate, America’s combat role in Southeast Asia. At the same time, Nixon entered into a series of arms control negotiations with the Soviet Union, producing the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty in the spring of 1972, which limited the two countries’ ability to create missile defense systems, and the Strategic Arms Limitation Talks (SALT), which set ceilings on the maximum number of intercontinental ballistic missiles in each country’s arsenal. The second phase of the SALT talks, which began during Nixon’s administration, were concluded by Nixon’s successor, Gerald Ford, and the SALT II treaty was sent to the U.S. Senate for ratification after Democrat Jimmy Carter had been elected in the Campaign of 1976. Relations with the Soviets had deteriorated during this time period, and Carter was forced to withdraw the treaty from the Senate, which had refused to ratify it. (The United States and the Soviet Union, however, adhered to the terms of the treaty regardless, until its expiration.) Also in the spring of 1972, Nixon made an official visit to China and normalized relations with the Communist country that had long been an adversary of the United States.
The Campaign of 1980 was conducted in an environment of heightened Cold War tensions, a recent Soviet invasion of neighboring Afghanistan, and American hostages in Iran. Incumbent president Jimmy Carter, faced with public angst over what appeared to be an increasingly hostile world, advocated increased military spending and attempted (without success) a risky hostage rescue. He also boycotted the summer Olympics in Moscow (which the Soviets reciprocated by boycotting the Los Angeles Olympics in 1984). Republican nominee Ronald Reagan advocated an even larger increase in defense spending and suggested the need for a more aggressive posture in dealing with the Soviets as a means to regain American prestige abroad and protect the nation’s security. While foreign policy concerns undoubtedly played a role in the outcome of the 1980 election, so too did the woeful state of the U.S. economy. While Carter had inherited a poor economy from his predecessor, he had not managed to find a workable solution to the nation’s dual problems of joblessness and high prices. While foreign policy crises can create a rally-around-the-flag effect, generating an upswing in a president’s domestic approval ratings, in Carter’s case, it appeared that there was little that he was able to do right. His foreign policy problems compounded his domestic policy problems.
After being elected, President Reagan set about keeping his promise to increase defense spending. Beyond this, he invaded the tiny island nation of Grenada in October 1983, claiming that the Marxist government posed a threat to the hundreds of American tourists and medical students on the island. It later emerged that Reagan had failed to notify British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher in advance of his actions; Grenada was a British protectorate. The Grenada action was controversial both at home and abroad. Supporters argued that defense of Americans abroad was important, and that this suggested that Reagan was willing to act militarily when American security was threatened. They viewed this as a warning to the nation’s enemies that the United States would be willing to act if provoked. Critics suggested that Reagan was engaging in the politics of distraction, when there was no real, meaningful threat in Grenada. They pointed out that there were ample reasons why the president might want the public to focus its attention elsewhere—shortly before the Grenada invasion, also in October 1983, a suicide bomber drove a truck packed with explosives through the open gate of the Marine barracks in Beirut, killing 241 service members. Indeed, six months earlier, the U.S. embassy in Beirut had been targeted, and sixty-three people, seventeen of whom were Americans, died in the bombing; this gave the impression that the White House had not taken the previous events in Beirut seriously and thus risked the safety of the Marines unnecessarily. In the aftermath of these events, Congress conducted a bipartisan investigation, assessing the errors that led to the deaths and suggesting improved security measures. Yet, in March 1984, Beirut’s CIA station chief, Bill Buckley, was kidnapped, tortured, and murdered, and in September 1984, an embassy annex in Beirut was bombed—apparently the security changes recommended by Congress were never implemented. In the end, Reagan withdrew U.S. forces from Lebanon.
In the Campaign of 1984, Reagan defended the military buildup, arguing that he only sought parity and not superiority, and in March 1983, he announced the Strategic Defense Initiative (SDI) program, which would have created a complicated ballistic missile defense system and would have led to the abrogation of the ABM Treaty. Journalists called this project the “Star Wars” system in a nod to the futuristic notion of ballistic missile defense, but the term was also sarcastic—the SDI system never managed to successfully target missiles in tests, where the timing and location of the missiles were known in advance, and most scientists of the day doubted that it was realistic to do so in the event of a real-world conflict (when foreign missiles needed to be targeted without mistake in the boost phase, which was over quite quickly). When asked about his previous use of the phrase “evil empire” to describe the USSR, Reagan backtracked slightly in 1984, suggesting that he would be willing to engage in arms control negotiations with the Soviets and that he did not seek the destruction of their political system. Democrat Walter Mondale, while also critical of the Soviets, suggested that the arms race was irresponsible, arguing that simply spending more on the military was not the same as spending money wisely. Mondale specifically criticized President Reagan for making no progress on arms control agreements during his time in office, further suggesting that the president was not interested in disarmament. Mondale also criticized the president for leaving Lebanon in humiliating circumstances, and he indicated that he would deploy the military to defend U.S. interests there. Mondale added that he would be willing to use U.S. military force in Central America as well to defend U.S. interests, but that he would not do so covertly and not without congressional approval, a criticism of Reagan’s covert support for the contras and other actors in the region.
In October 1986, Reagan and Mikhail Gorbachev, the Soviet leader, met at a summit in Reykjavik. Gorbachev unexpectedly agreed to eliminate his country’s nuclear weapons if the United States would do the same, but he was only willing to do so if the United States abandoned its plans for SDI. While the summit at Reykjavik produced no policy successes, it appeared to open the door to the possibility that the Soviets would be willing to reduce their nuclear stockpiles (previous agreements had had quotas but did not dismantle existing stockpiles). Gorbachev and Reagan eventually negotiated the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces (INF) Treaty in 1987, which was the first treaty to eliminate an entire class of nuclear weapons.
Reagan’s vice president, George H. W. Bush, campaigned for president in the Campaign of 1988 in a new world, one where the virulent conflict between the United States and the USSR appeared to be ending. He called for a “kinder, gentler nation,” and while he suggested that the United States needed to be cautious in its dealings with its former adversary, he also noted that “our new relationship in part reflects the triumph of hope and strength over experience. But hope is good. And so is strength. And vigilance.” Bush focused on specific defense programs, in particular the Midgetman missile system and the MX missile, suggesting that his opponent would do away with these programs, or would even support a unilateral nuclear freeze. Bush stated in a debate that he could not commit to cutting any portion of the defense budget, because if he were to mention a program that he did not believe was necessary, this could be giving away critical information to the Soviets that could be used against the United States. He cautioned against going back to the days when “we were the laughingstock of the world.”
Bush’s opponent, Massachusetts governor Mike Dukakis, criticized Bush and Reagan for enabling Panamanian dictator Manuel Noriega, arguing that U.S. complicity over Panama’s involvement in drug trafficking was leading to problems of drug abuse and addiction on the home front. He also argued that Bush was actively involved in the decision to sell weapons to the Iranian government and use the funds for the contras, and that he was a supporter of Ferdinand Marcos before he was deposed, attempting to neutralize Bush’s foreign policy experience by reminding voters of some of the more distasteful elements of that background. Dukakis was generally critical of the Reagan administration’s efforts to destabilize regimes in Central America and Africa (i.e., Angola) and the lack of concern about economic inequality outside of the United States. In an unfortunate attempt to demonstrate his interest in foreign policy and the military, Dukakis paid a visit to the Chrysler tank factory outside of Detroit and was photographed taking a ride in a tank. Bush used the footage, which was visually unflattering, to mock him in a campaign ad. Ultimately, Bush was able to benefit from serving in a popular presidential administration and linking himself to the achievements of that administration. The arms control agreements at of Reagan’s second term, and the demise of the Soviet Union, seemed to justify Reagan’s earlier, more belligerent approach to the Soviet Union.
Once in office, Bush, with an experienced foreign policy team at his side, focused on negotiating additional agreements with the Soviets and dealing with the opening of eastern Europe. The Bush administration was not reluctant to engage in military conflict, despite Bush having been portrayed as soft by his detractors throughout the election campaign. In December 1989, less than a year after taking office, Bush sent tens of thousands of U.S. troops into Panama in order to arrest leader Manuel Noriega on charges of drug trafficking and extradite him to the United States (creating a regime change in the bargain). The conflict was over within weeks, and U.S. troops returned home. Twenty American soldiers were killed, and somewhere between three hundred and five hundred Panamanians died in the conflict. Bush sought neither UN nor OAS approval; the action was unilateral. A little more than a year later, in the winter of 1990, Iraq invaded Kuwait, and Bush once again supported an invasion. In this instance, he sought international support, but as was the case with Panama, the military objectives were limited: Iraq was to be driven out of Kuwait, the Kuwaiti government (in no way a democracy) was to be restored, and troops would then leave the region. The conflict in Kuwait was widely televised, akin to a sporting event, and Bush experienced a surge in public approval as people “rallied around the flag.”
But the support did not last. While Bush had been concerned about foreign policy (the press had been counting how many days he had spent in the United States in recent years), economic conditions at home were grim. Once the conflict in Kuwait was over, Bush concentrated his efforts on getting reelected, moving Secretary of State James Baker out of the State Department to head up his reelection campaign. Bush touted the first Gulf War as a major foreign policy accomplishment and claimed primary responsibility for ending the Cold War as his major pitch to voters in the Campaign of 1992. However, the generally poor state of the domestic economy proved to be more important to voters, who were dismayed to note Bush’s amazement at a cash register scanner at a campaign stop (clearly, the candidate had not shopped for groceries in quite some time), and Bush failed to win reelection. More than a decade later, in the Campaign of 2004, Bush’s son George W. Bush ran for reelection after involving the United States in military interventions in both Afghanistan and Iraq in response to the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks on the United States. While Bush had declared the end of hostilities in Iraq during his infamous “Mission Accomplished” speech in May 2003, the country was still at war in Iraq when Election Day rolled around. Bush urged voters to “stay the course” and suggested that with perseverance, the United States would be victorious in both conflicts. In a close election, Bush narrowly defeated Democratic nominee John Kerry. Kerry had initially supported U.S. involvement in both conflicts, but later he became critical of the war in Iraq. However, he was unwilling to state that with hindsight, he would have refused to enter the conflict. Kerry’s inability to provide a clear alternative to the policies being pursued by the Bush administration undoubtedly hampered his candidacy.
The wars in both Iraq and Afghanistan were still going strong by the Campaign of 2008. Democratic nominee Barack Obama promised to quickly withdraw U.S. troops from Iraq and to reallocate them to Afghanistan, where he argued that U.S. efforts were seriously under-resourced. Republican nominee John McCain, on the other hand, campaigned to keep U.S. troops in Iraq indefinitely, and to consider an invasion of neighboring Iran if it appeared that the country was close to developing a nuclear capability. While political analysts originally viewed the two conflicts in the Middle East as the potential determinants of the 2008 election outcome, the quickly sinking economy appeared to eclipse most of voters’ foreign policy concerns.
Once the Campaign of 2012 was under way, initial similarities between the parties quickly ended. While Republican candidates appeared almost isolationist to some observers in the early days of the campaign, by the primary season, most were advocating increases in military spending and a more activist U.S. foreign policy (with Ron Paul as a notable exception). The Republican Party as a whole expressed a strong commitment to the ideals of American exceptionalism, accusing Obama and the Democrats of being willing to give up the country’s role as a global hegemonic power in favor of a multipolar system. The Democrats argued that costs of continuing the war in Afghanistan should be weighed against the U.S. ability to pay for the conflict, given the challenges faced by Americans on the home front. Democrats supported a more limited U.S. role in conflicts overseas, with a greater emphasis on training and support for domestic security forces in Afghanistan and a near-term withdrawal of U.S. forces from the region. The Republican Party’s response to the Arab Spring remained murky; while the party remained strongly pro-Israel, it was not clear how this should influence U.S. policy toward other states in the region (other than Iran). Obama, for his part, defended his use of force in Libya as part of the NATO mission to protect civilians (despite failing to consult Congress, as the War Powers Act said he must) and maintained his commitment to removing most U.S. troops from Iraq and setting a deadline for the removal of troops from Afghanistan. He touted the assassination of Osama bin Laden and the victory of U.S. and NATO forces in Libya as examples of his foreign policy successes. With the domestic economy still in a state of turmoil (but showing some signs of recovery), his foreign policy achievements, like those of presidents before him, were not the primary basis on which most voters judged him. As other elections have demonstrated, when the two are in competition, voters usually opt to vote on the basis of bread-and-butter issues rather than on the basis of foreign affairs.
U.S. policy in the Middle East remained a topic in the Campaign of 2016. By 2015, President Obama had negotiated a multilateral agreement with Iran and other western powers in which Iran agreed to limitations on its efforts to develop nuclear weapons in exchange for an internationally monitored foray into the use of nuclear power for the purpose of energy production and the lifting of international sanctions. Israel was a strong critic of the agreement, having long advocated for the use of military force in the short term against the regime in Iran. Democratic candidates for the White House generally supported President Obama and the agreement with Iran, whereas GOP candidates for the presidency were critical of both, affirming the GOP’s commitment to Israel and to its ruling conservative Likud Party.
Partisan differences also emerged over whether to send ground troops to Syria to combat the presence of the Islamic State in the Levant (ISIL, often referred to by GOP supporters as ISIS) as well as the growing military presence of Russia. Democratic candidates supported groups opposed to ISIL and to Syrian president Asaad, but they tended to draw the line at ground troops, arguing that more resources and training should be directed at those groups in the region that already supported U.S. interests, such as the Kurds. Republican candidates tended to be more supportive of sending ground troops to Syria, and also of reintroducing American forces to Iraq, where ISIL had also been making inroads in the wake of the instability caused by the earlier American invasion. Not all GOP candidates agree on the use of ground troops in Syria. Donald Trump, still leading the polls in October 2015, has gone on record in support of allowing Russia to take the lead in managing the Syrian conflict, even to the point of yielding to Russian troops on Syrian soil. But Mr. Trump is not averse to using military force, claiming that he is “the most militaristic person” among the current candidates. While in the past (as late as 2013) he has called for withdrawal from Afghanistan, more recently he has “begrudgingly” conceded that the United States cannot realistically leave Afghanistan, and he has also stated (in August 2015) that he would not hesitate to use force in Iraq to impose American will and “take the oil.”
By and large GOP candidates have blamed Obama for prematurely withdrawing troops from Iraq, leaving the door open to ISIL/ISIS; Democrats blamed George W. Bush and the Republicans for the crisis in Iraq, arguing that their support for the invasion and the inadequacy of the government backed by the Americans after the invasion created the basis for the current problems in the region. Republican candidates remain divided over the best approach to dealing with ISIL. Following the terrorist attacks in San Bernardino, California, in early December 2015, attacks linked to ISIL sympathizers, candidates from both parties have been compelled to address homeland security against these kinds of threats. Naturally, Donald Trump went so far as to propose a now widely condemned plan that would prohibit Muslim immigrants and travelers from entering the United States. More belligerently, and consistent with previous statements, Mr. Trump publicly recommended military force against ISIL, promising in an interview on Fox and Friends that he “would knock the hell out of ISIS,” that he “would hit them so hard.” Elaborating further, Mr. Trump darkly explained that, “When you get these terrorists, you have to take out their families. They care about their lives, don’t kid yourself. When they say they don’t care about their lives, you have to take out their families.” Senator Cruz has seconded this sentiment, recommending that the United States should “carpet bomb” ISIL “into oblivion.”
There has been somewhat less disagreement over the withdrawal of U.S. troops from Afghanistan, initially slated for the end of President Obama’s first term in office. The failure of the Afghan military to maintain control over the region, and the continuing threat of Taliban resurgence (coupled with the new threat of the expansion of ISIL’s influence in the region), led Obama to postpone troop withdrawal, and this effectively precluded political debate over the efficacy of ending that conflict in the near future.
See also Isolationism; Trade Issue
Buchanan, Bruce. The Policy Partnership: Presidential Elections and American Democracy. New York: Routledge, 2004.
DeSilvio, David. How Domestic Politics Influenced Foreign Policy in the 1940 Election. Berlin: VDM Verlag Dr. Muller, 2008.
Hunt, Michael H. Ideology and U.S. Foreign Policy. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 1988.
Small, Melvin. Democracy and Diplomacy: The Impact of Domestic Politics in U.S. Foreign Policy 1789–1994. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1995.