Foreign policy issues dominated the 2008 presidential primary season, but by the time the general election rolled around, the focus had shifted to the economy. Could the reverse be true in 2012? During the last presidential cycle, the Iraq War played a major role in the nominations of Sens. Barack Obama and John McCain. On the Democratic side, the fact that the inexperienced Obama had opposed the invasion from the beginning gave him the edge over the heavily favored Hillary Clinton, who as a senator had voted to give President Bush the authority to go to war.
McCain, who had been written off for dead because of immigration and other battles he waged against conservatives, was ultimately able to connect with Republican voters because of his heroic military career and early and unwavering support for the surge strategy in Iraq.
But, as the economy soured and financial markets collapsed in the fall of 2008, economic concerns trumped everything else in voters’ minds. Exit polls showed that just 19 percent of voters named Iraq or terrorism as their most important issue, compared with 63 percent who chose the economy.
By contrast, in 2004, Iraq or terrorism was the most important issue for 34 percent of the electorate, with the economy and jobs at 20 percent.
As is typically the case when things are bad, economic concerns have remained the top issue, which is a major reason why former businessman Mitt Romney is likely to overcome conservative disgruntlement with his liberal record in Massachusetts and win the Republican nomination.
At the same time, criticisms of Obama’s handling of international affairs have generally not gained much traction outside of the conservative media or foreign policy establishment.
The lack of a massive, pressing, national security crisis has kept America’s attention on pocketbook issues, and Obama’s image got a boost from his ordering the raid that killed 9/11 mastermind Osama bin Laden.
It’s true that Obama’s hostile stance toward Israel likely cost Democrats a congressional seat in New York in a special election this year, but he generally hasn’t suffered politically for any foreign policy decisions.
Even when his approval rating was at its lowest, Obama polled relatively well on foreign policy and national security questions.
But as we head into 2012, there’s plenty of potential for foreign policy issues to seize the spotlight.
We’ve already seen signs that Obama’s mismanaged pullout of U.S. troops from Iraq is having disastrous ramifications, with a wave of bombings last Thursday killing 60 people and wounding 200 others.
Iraqi Vice President Tariq al-Hashemi has become a fugitive who cannot return to his home or office in Baghdad because Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki issued a warrant for his arrest. Hashemi told Newsweek’s Eli Lake that stability in the country was “really deteriorating.”
We still don’t know how this year’s “Arab Spring” movement will play out next year, but Egyptian elections already demonstrated the strength of radical Islamic forces in the largest Arab country.
Iran is still moving toward a nuclear weapon and the clock is ticking for Israel to take pre-emptive action.
In Russia, Vladimir Putin has maneuvered to seize power potentially through 2024, but is now facing widespread protests over obviously rigged parliamentary elections.
It’s unclear where any of these developments will lead, or how they will affect the United States. And it’s true that presidential elections aren’t usually determined by foreign policy.
But given the volatility in the world, it would be shortsighted for political analysts to assume foreign policy will not be a factor in the presidential election.
Philip Klein is senior editorial writer for The Examiner. He can be reached at [email protected].
