Ours is a fractured age, and politics is no exception.
Partisan malice is on the rise, with four in 10 Republicans and Democrats agreeing voters in the opposing party are “downright evil,” and around a fifth saying we would “be better off as a country if large numbers of the opposing party in the public today just died.”
That animosity makes points of broad political agreement remarkable, but foreign policy is one of those rare points. New survey results from the Eurasia Group Foundation reveal Americans “across a number of foreign policy issues, and across generations and party lines” believe Washington should pursue a less aggressive foreign policy.
This accord is not a new development — on the contrary, it’s but the latest installment amid years of polling showing that voters want peace, diplomacy, economic engagement, and the United States which leads the world toward democracy by example, not through force. Our representatives in Washington must take the voters’ will for restrained foreign policy as a mandate.
The EGF survey delved into specific foreign policy topics, but it began with grand strategy: How is “[p]eace is best achieved and sustained by the United States?” Eight in 10 respondents rejected military interventionism, and a plurality preferred “keeping a focus on domestic needs and the health of American democracy while avoiding unnecessary intervention beyond the borders of the United States.”
Partisan responses were split nearly equally, which means the interventionist stance is not a winning ticket for any party. Results split by support for President Trump and three front-runners in the Democratic primary were similarly mixed, and pro-democracy interventionism did not receive plurality backing among any of the four candidates’ supporters.
Even drilling down to specific issues, EGF found similar levels of agreement. A majority rejected U.S.-led military action as a solution to international humanitarian crises, preferring to limit the military to defense of the U.S. instead. Likewise, majorities across partisan lines and 2020 loyalties opposed increasing the $750 billion military budget.
When asked about individual nations, respondents, again and again, favored restraint.
The rise of China should be handled by Beijing’s regional neighbors, most respondents said, and not a U.S. military build-up in Asia, which could lead to a dangerous escalation. More than two-thirds said it is time to bring the war in Afghanistan to a close, with a plurality, 39%, supporting withdrawal “immediately or within a year” and 31% wanting to negotiate a peace settlement.
And although Iran was the Middle Eastern nation most likely to be named as a threat to U.S. security, appetite for military intervention was extremely low — around 10% — while enthusiasm for diplomacy and simply leaving Iran alone is on the rise, together comprising nearly 60% of respondents’ views.
These numbers are not outliers. On the contrary, they confirm the results of the 2000, 2008, and 2016 elections, all of which saw Americans elect a new president on (ultimately unfulfilled) promises of a less aggressive foreign policy.
The EGF data also tracks with many other foreign policy surveys.
For example, Pew Research polling published in July showed less than one-third of Americans believe U.S. intervention in Afghanistan, Iraq, and Syria was worth it. Last summer, a survey by RealClearPolitics and the Charles Koch Foundation found seven in 10 want to deal with North Korea tensions via diplomacy.
And in December 2017, another RCP/CKI poll observed a wide, cross-partisan concurrence that the interventionist foreign policy of the post-9/11 period had made us less safe. In 2016, a University of Maryland poll reported support for diplomatic cooperation with Russia and strong opposition to regime change as a prime U.S. goal in Syria, and a Pew survey showed Americans wary of Washington’s attempts to solve problems abroad.
Other examples abound, but these suffice to demonstrate Americans’ persistent demand for a new direction in our foreign policy, namely a turn away from two decades of costly and often counterproductive military intervention. Political polarization, especially where Ukraine and Syria are concerned, has obscured this accord, highlighting our disagreements about the president and downplaying this important policy consensus.
But the EGF poll reiterates once again what polling data has shown for years: Americans realize it’s time to be done with our reckless affinity for endless war. Now Washington should follow suit.
Bonnie Kristian (@bonniekristian) is a fellow at Defense Priorities and contributing editor at The Week.
