If Hillary Clinton uses Thursday’s foreign policy speech in California to make the case for rebuilding the military and backs it up with a plan to pay for the boost, she could start the conversation to court Republican national security experts who have sworn off Donald Trump, according to one analyst.
Bryan McGrath, a defense consultant, said Clinton must also disassociate herself with President Obama’s foreign policy, which Republicans have largely seen as ineffective, to have a chance at getting the support of the national security experts who have said they will not support Trump.
“If she puts that in the rear view mirror, I think she can begin to have a real dialogue with disaffected Republican national security people,” said McGrath, who helped coordinate an open letter signed by 121 conservative national security experts in March promising to fight the nomination of Donald Trump.
McGrath said there are no magic words Clinton could say in her speech that could lure Republican “Never Trump”-ers to her side, but that the foreign policy speech is a chance to showcase her views on where America stands in the world, which she’s largely neglected so far in the domestic-focused primary race with Bernie Sanders.
“That has not been something she talked about much on the campaign trail because she’s dealing with a neoisolationalist socialist. On the GOP side, you have this neoisolationist Donald Trump,” McGrath said. “She could be the only person left standing who actually believes the United States has a special purpose in the world. If she begins to talk about that tomorrow, I think it’s a sign she feels Sanders is in the rear view mirror.”
Colin Dueck, an associate professor at George Mason University’s School of Policy, Government and International Affairs who previously said he would vote for neither Trump nor Clinton, said a speech won’t change his perception of the viewpoints both candidates have already laid out.
“At this point I think we have a pretty good sense of who Clinton and Trump are — their policy ideas, their character and their history. I can’t support either one,” he said.
But Andrew Sagor, an associate at Paul Weiss law firm who plans to support Clinton, said the former Obama administration official may be able to sway Republican voters if she presents a vote for Trump as detrimental to the security of the country.
“National security Republicans can have qualms about Clinton, but Clinton can be effective in reaching such Republicans if she convinces them that the alternative to her national security stewardship would be far more dangerous to the country,” he said.
To do that, Sagor said Clinton could bring up several of Trump’s gaffes, including his apparent lack of knowledge about what the nuclear triad is, a misunderstanding of the Islamic State and a “nonsensical” plan to seize Iraqi oil.
“On terrorism and national security, I am hopeful that Clinton can draw a contrast between herself and Trump by proposing substantive policy propals that are grounded in reality and reflect that she has the political will to confront and to destroy ISIS, to keep Iran in check and to tackle our other significant geopolitical challenges,” he said.
Clinton gave a speech in November, days after the attacks in Paris, that focused on her strategy to defeat the Islamic State, which includes a “more effective” airstrike campaign, better regional partnerships to collect intelligence and support for local ground forces. During another military-centric speech at Stanford University in March following the terrorist attacks in Brussels, Clinton took several jabs at Trump, including saying that “loose cannons tend to misfire,” MSNBC reported.
She’s previously said she would not put U.S. troops into Syria, even if America faced an attack at home.
This week, Clinton also released her plan for military benefits, including more flexibility in leave time, access to child care and input by the family into where the service member is assigned, Military Times reported.
Clinton’s foreign policy speech will “rebuke the fear, bigotry and misplaced defeatism that Trump has been selling to the American people,” an aide told the Washington Post.
But McGrath said Clinton should focus Thursday’s speech on her plan for America in the world and her accomplishments, not on trashing Trump’s ability to be commander in chief, saying that 16 Republican candidates tried to win the nomination by poking fun at Trump, but none of them succeeded.
Michael O’Hanlon, an analyst with the Brookings Institution, also said he expected the former secretary of state to “focus on the world first and Trump second.”
James Carafano, vice president of foreign and defense policy studies at the Heritage Foundation, said the speech presents many challenges for Clinton. She must distance herself from Obama’s foreign policy without alienating Obama supporters, be forward-looking and knowledgeable without sounding “wonkish” and making viewers’ eyes glaze over and prevent it from devolving into a name-calling match with Trump.
“If it turns out we’re now in a name-calling duel on foreign policy, I think she’s outclassed,” Carafano said. “That’s his ground.”
