The vast majority of Americans believe a terrorist attack on the United States in the near future is likely, prompting the 2016 presidential conversation to turn to foreign policy as candidates put out their plans to defeat the Islamic State.
While attacks in France and Mali could give a short-term boost to those with experience in elected office, analysts say it’s unclear if the heightened concern about national security among voters will continue for nearly a year until Election Day.
Analysts agreed that, while the attacks have “drastically altered” the focus of campaigning, it would likely take something like repeated attacks on the West or an attack on the U.S. homeland to shift the focus to foreign policy for the rest of the election cycle.
David Rohde, a political science professor at Duke University, said if there are few attacks between now and next November, domestic issues may come back to the foreground. But if there continues to be a “rash of terrorist attacks,” foreign policy could end up playing a larger role.
“In terms of presidential races, it’s a lifetime between now and next November when folks will actually cast [a ballot], so whether this will have an enduring effect in that sense or whether the relative balance shifts back is going to depend more than anything else on what happens in the real world,” he said.
Six terrorist attacks throughout Paris this month carried out by the Islamic State killed 130 people and raised concerns about the terrorist group’s ability to conduct sophisticated strikes outside of the Middle East. And then on Friday, gunmen affiliated with al Qaeda in the Islamic Magreb held hostages in an upscale hotel in Bamako, Mali, killing nearly 20 people.
Eighty-one percent of Americans believe a major terrorist attack on the U.S. is likely in the near future, a level of anxiety that’s only been higher once in history — immediately after the 9/11 attacks, according to an ABC/Washington Post poll released Friday. Nearly three-quarters of the more than 1,000 adults polled support increased U.S. airstrikes against the Islamic State and 60 percent support using more U.S. ground forces.
In response, presidential candidates of both parties have released plans and made speeches about how they would defeat the Islamic State if elected the next commander in chief. Even Sen. Bernie Sanders, I-Vt., who has largely focused on domestic issues, laid out his foreign strategy in a speech at Georgetown University on Thursday.
“It’s crowded out the debate about income inequality for the moment,” said Matt Dallek, an assistant professor at the Graduate School of Political Management at George Washington University. “The question is does this debate continue and does the campaign, as in 2004, does it become more about terrorism and national security than issues like income inequality and economic growth at home?”
“But I would say it’s safe to say that even now a year out, by the time general election rolls around, ‘What will you do to defeat ISIS?’ is going to be a crucial question that nominees of both parties are going to have to answer and answer effectively,” Dallek said.
Rohde said the shift to foreign policy will likely benefit Hillary Clinton, who has consistently “looked better” than Sanders when talking foreign policy. Among a crowded Republican field, he said it could give an advantage to those with experience serving in elected office and give Donald Trump his edge back over Ben Carson, who has had trouble handling foreign policy issues.
But Dallek said it’s difficult to generalize about who will benefit from increased concerns over national security, since it could be an advantage and a disadvantage depending on how opponents and voters see the issues.
For example, the new focus on foreign policy could help former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush if voters decide they want to elect someone with a lot of experience in politics and decision making. If, however, the focus on foreign policy draws attention back to past conflicts like the Iraq war, Bush’s ties to his brother, George W. Bush, could hurt him, Dallek said.
He also used Sen. Marco Rubio, R-Fla., as a candidate who could either be helped or hurt by a renewed interest in foreign policy. Rubio’s ability to speak articulately and hawkishly could help him. But, as analysts criticize President Obama’s handling of the Islamic State thus far, Rubio could be hurt if opponents compare Rubio to Obama as an “untested, junior, first-term senator who isn’t ready.”
