When the U.S. is switching to midterm election time, the media’s attention is usually focused on domestic issues. It is not that international affairs are not important, but comparatively the public that is overwhelmed by local issues often overlooks the importance of foreign policy. The United States’ foreign policy is usually not much affected by the election. However, in the Obama administration, due to the unprecedented political polarization and the gridlock it caused, this political dynamic is changing and the midterm elections begin to affect U.S. foreign policy.
The political polarization reached its peak in the last four years, and resulted in the least productive congressional session, the dysfunction of the government and the dramatic decrease of the President Obama’s power in job appointment. According to the National Journal late last year, Congress has the lowest output since 1947, with 58 bills enacted into law, the tiniest fraction of the 6,366 bills introduced by lawmakers. When Republicans and Democrats are making policy decisions aiming at political gains in midterm elections rather than advancing national interests, the whole society suffers. So did U.S. foreign policy.
First, the budget crisis is affecting the execution of U.S. foreign policy. In recent years, Congress could seldom pass a budget before the new fiscal year started. Last year, the rare shutdown of the none-defense related government agencies highlighted the tension between the two parties. Later last year, when Republican’s approval rate dropped to the lowest point of 28% since 1992, the two parties finally made a deal. They agreed to set up the following two years’ spending level, and tried to avoid another shutdown before this year’s midterm election. For the last decade, most of the time the government was running with Congress’ continuing resolution, which means government agencies would have to maintain previous year’s spending level, and could not make any new policy proposals due to lack of additional funding.
That is why this summer when President Obama promised to set up a $5 billion Counterterrorism Partnerships Fund, not many people believed that he would succeed. It is not that President Obama was not sincere enough, but everyone knows Congress might not be so generous, or that Republicans would be so cooperative. The same is true with President Obama’s promise made in Poland when he asked Congress to approve his $1 billion budget request to send more American soldiers to Europe. Without budget support, President Obama’s words are empty in the world’s eyes.
Second, delays in the appointment of officials focusing on foreign affairs issues harm U.S. foreign policy. Traditionally, the average time for a diplomat to be confirmed in the Senate takes around 110 days. However, in President Obama’s second term, due to strong opposition from Senate Republicans, this period doubled to 238 days. In early July, Secretary of State John Kerry complained the Senate confirmation process was broken, leaving the administration without ambassadors to nearly 50 countries.
It sounds ridiculous but it is true that when the U.S. was going to hold the first-ever U.S.-Africa Leaders Summit in early August, several U.S. ambassadors’ posts in Africa were not filled. When the U.S. was negotiating with Russia on the Ukraine crisis, it did not have a confirmed ambassador in Moscow. The gridlock in Congress as well as the midterm elections has made compromise even more difficult.
Thirdly, party conflicts in the election season affect foreign policy making and implementation. Last year, because of the government shutdown, President Obama did not attend the annual APEC meeting and the East Asia Summit, which sparked concerns in the ASEAN countries. Some even wondered if the U.S. rebalance strategy was real. This year, the Obama administration is facing far more international challenges than it did in its first term. However, it has not received more support from Congress than it did in the first term, either. The public has witnessed the Republicans challenging Obama’s foreign policy decisions. From Iran to Syria, Ukraine, Iraq and even Afghanistan, Republicans believe that President Obama’s policies have harmed U.S. national interests and hurt its status in the international system. Therefore, Republicans have asked the President to be even tougher.
Moreover, the Republicans in Congress tried to use their power of investigation to make the Obama administration appear weak and incompetent. For example, Republicans insisted that the Banghazi issue needed reinvestigation, and the House of Representatives established another investigative committee earlier this year. What the Republicans wanted is to make the Banghazi issue another Watergate for President Obama, therefore making the President a liability for Democrats facing midterm elections.
When President Obama is busy dealing with domestic scandals and coping with criticism from Congress, he is certainly not strategically focused on the foreign policy priorities of the U.S. That is why in the first half of this year, many analysts believed Sino-US relations were in a free fall, and some even warned the two countries were facing an early strategic showdown. With the new round of S&ED, bilateral relations seemed to be back on track. But, now that midterm elections are approaching and President Obama is again preoccupied by domestic issues, it is not likely that the Obama administration would pay more attention to the issues that need to be addressed in Sino-US relations.
It is obvious when political parties put their electoral interests before national interests, and their squabbling stumbles the country’s foreign policy, that it is detrimental for the U.S. to continue wishing to be the leader of the world. The American politics to some degree is election politics, and for politicians their top priorities are wining elections. However, if political parties only focus on elections, the country will suffer for its failure to solve the problems it faces. People need to ask whether this American politics is wise enough for the U.S. to maintain its supremacy in the world and to stop the United States’ foreign policy decline, as some people have worried.
Zhang Zhixin is the Chief of American Political Studies of Institute of American Studies, CICIR. His researches focus on the U.S. politics and US-China relations.
