Foreign Policy Dividing Our Parties

Middle East policy doesn’t fit our domestic sorting.

17

Comments

NYT (“How Israel and Iran Are Fracturing Both Parties in the Midterms“):

Bitter foreign policy debates over Israel and Iran are fracturing the Democratic and Republican parties, creating powerful wedge issues that are reshaping the battle for control of Congress this year and could affect the 2028 presidential election.

The dispute among Democrats, in particular, has already left a lasting mark on the midterms. Israel’s growing unpopularity since the war in Gaza began nearly three years ago emerged as a dominant force last week, when two incumbent House Democrats in New York lost to primary challengers who had cast them as insufficiently critical of the U.S. ally.

And both U.S. support of Israel and the war with Iran continue to cause fissures inside the Republican Party, and particularly within President Trump’s Make America Great Again movement. Isolationists who hailed Mr. Trump’s campaign promise to avoid foreign wars say they feel betrayed by his intervention in Iran and the domestic consequence: spiking prices.

Recently, another front has emerged against the president. Now that he is negotiating with Iran, he faces backlash from hawks within the party who believe he did not achieve his goal of crippling the country’s military and nuclear capabilities, let alone end its hard-line regime.

The rifts are producing unsettling election outcomes in a critical midterm year in which control of Congress, and the fate of Mr. Trump’s agenda, are at stake. Some centrist Democrats are losing, with more at risk in upcoming races. Some Republican voters are staying home, a potential disaster for their party if the trend carries to November.

All of those dynamics are emboldening critics who want to permanently reshape their respective parties’ ideologies and policy platforms — and who are planning to take that fight to the 2028 presidential election.

As incredibly sorted as we’ve become on domestic issues, there’s really no reason why the same alignments would apply to foreign policy. It makes sense that urban voters and those who live in the suburbs and rural areas would view social issues and regulatory policy differently. There’s no obvious reason that the same divide would exist vis-a-vis Israel or Iran. Or, indeed, that people would necessarily divide the same way on Israel as they do Iran.

In the distant past of my youth, when the Cold War dominated US foreign policy, sorting was easier. Republicans tended to be more hawkish and pro-defense than Democrats at the national level. But, because the parties were less sorted, there was also regional variation. Southern Democrats were more hawkish and Northeastern Republicans more dovish than the party leadership.

With no central villain to rally around, American foreign policy is messier and more mercurial, changing from administration to administration. And most Americans pay little attention, anyway, unless it directly affects their pocketbooks. Further, because of our extreme partisan sorting, the same action taken by Joe Biden and Donald Trump will elicit divergent reactions.

I’ve been studying, participating in, or teaching international and military affairs in some capacity for over four decades now and find myself torn on the matter of Israel. I simultaneously defend their right to defend themselves, think they’re committing war crimes in the process, and see little viable alternative given Hamas’ intentional use of civilians as human shields. That Netanyahu is doctrinaire and unlikable doesn’t help their cause. Regardless, the matter is sufficiently complicated to naturally divide people who support a party mostly on domestic issues.

Iran is comparatively easy, since we’re losing a war of choice and paying radically more at the pump for the privilege. Even there, though, we’ve been in a state of tension with the Islamic Republic for nearly half a century and trying to forestall their acquisition of nuclear weapons for decades. It’s understandable that some supported President Trump’s boldness in taking decisive action and are now frustrated that he’s settling for, well, not much.

Regardless, I’m skeptical that internal divisions over either issue are going to be a dominant theme in the midterms. Domestic policy almost always dominates our elections. And, of course, there are only a handful of competitive races to begin with.

17 responses to “Foreign Policy Dividing Our Parties”

  1. The dispute among Democrats, in particular, has already left a lasting mark on the midterms. Israel’s growing unpopularity since the war in Gaza began nearly three years ago emerged as a dominant force last week

    Notable? Maybe. Dominant? I’m sorry, but no. NYT and the press flogging this overblown narrative is starting to reach Hillary’s Emails level.

    Most of the Democrats nominated in last Tuesday’s elections are pro-Israel. This is just a numerical fact. They’re actually on the whole more pro-Israel than even I would like, and I’m no fan of the Hamas Piker left, at all. Is the New York Slimes not aware Democrats nominated 40+ candidates across four states last week, not just 2-3 in Manhattan? Or is this more of the media’s infamous New York bias?

    Perhaps some of the frustration among the Gaza First part of the Dem base is their too-high expectations not meeting reality — from being repeatedly lied to by the media on this subject. They keep hearing of some anti-Israel groundswell in Dem electoral politics, yet keep seeing this not translate into significant policy change. Because the actual candidates most Dem primary voters are picking, irrespective of those voters’ own views, are mostly not much more “anti-Israel” than the standard issue Obama era antipathy to Netanyahu. Those who are more stridently anti-Israel are still the exception.

    Same goes for Republicans. No matter Republican voters’ personal views and growing Israel skepticism, almost their nominees are also pro-Israel. And in lockstep with Trump on Iran — and everything else.

    Fracture makes for a cute and melodramatic headline, but that’s not what’s happening in the voting booth.

    11
  2. @DK: I think part of it is that, no matter how much NYT has become a national rather than a local paper, they’re still overly influenced by what happens in New York. These issues have played a more central role in the NYC mayoral and other contests than maybe they have nationally.

    8
  3. Michael Reynolds Avatar
    Michael Reynolds

    Anti-Israel Democrats demand a Palestinian state, which is not happening. Hawkish Republicans are demanding Trump ‘finish it’ in Iran, which also, isn’t happening. For my part I’m demanding zero calorie whiskey.

    I wish Americans actually knew something about foreign policy, but they don’t. Left or Right, Hawk or Dove it all comes down to some version of ‘Why don’t we/they just do X?” And the answer is always, ‘Because if X were doable it would already been done.’ See: zero calorie whiskey.

    7
  4. Given, that for generic voters, questions of foreign policy are an afterthought, FP will have a greater influence during the primaries than in Nov. What is interesting is that for different reasons, significant swarths of each parties most attuned voters, have turned against Israel. What that portends for ME policy in the future and in particular, US policy toward Israel is what is worth watching.

    Given that Israel abandoned Dems to go all in with R’s, Israel is now dead to many Dems. On the R side, the Israel/Iran hawks are taking control of the party and even Rubio will temper his support for Israel and an aggressive policy in the ME.

    4
  5. Nothing to do with partisanship, but I’m struck by the irony of our situation. Many states in the Middle East produce oil. For sixty plus years we depended on their oil. And for all that time, through two energy crises, we chose to ally ourselves with the ME country that produced oranges. Now that we’re no longer a net importer of oil and Saudi Arabia has probably passed peak oil production, we seem to be shifting our alliance to Saudi Arabia. Whatever this is, Realpolitik it ain’t.

    6
  6. @Sleeping Dog: I think Israel’s decision to align with the Republican party has made it difficult for Dems. Anything other than supporting Israel gets you labeled anti-semitic if you arent Jewish. Besides which, out of a bad lot, Israel is probably still the best option in the area. I think we should regard it as a client state, not an ally, and not very reliable. They involve themselves way too directly into our internal politics and we dont get much out of the relationship.

    Steve

    11
  7. @Michael Reynolds:

    For my part I’m demanding zero calorie whiskey.

    Easy. just heat it to boil off the alcohol, then filter the solids that remain. Voila!

    Or skip the procedure, and save a lot of money, and just drink plain water.

    2
  8. @steve222:

    Portraying opposition to Israeli as anti-semitism is a fraying position. It is becoming increasingly difficult for R’s to call Dems anti-semitic when a significant portion of the parties base and in particular the RW press, engages in anti-semitic tropes on a daily basis. That isn’t to deny that some of the left’s criticism of Israel is indeed based in anti-semitism.

    6
  9. @Sleeping Dog: In Texas, this is certainly true. There is historically a very large nativist population that is racist, bigoted, Christianist and so forth. Right now, they are screaming about Sharia Law but underneath that is anti-Semitism, anti-Mormonism and more.

    5
  10. @Sleeping Dog: To be honest, I haven’t seen FOX/GOP to be having any difficulty calling Ds anti-semitic. And they’re sure as hell not going to cop to anti-semitism being primarily a conservative position, as it was in the beginning, is now, and ever shall be.

    4
  11. America’s foreign policy is functionally nihilistic. The only defense now is just a contemptuous shrug, and Israel is just biggest player in the game. I don’t think onlye Gaza cost the Democrats the election or gave us Trump. But the party leaders for the Democrats have made it clear that given the choice, they would rather have Trump than have lifted a finger to stop Israel’s genocide.

    And they can’t tell you why. It’s only Israel’s justified propaganda as a haven for Jewish people…It’s very similar to capitalism and climate change: the American way of life depends on endless consumption and not giving a shit, and it’s pretty clear that given the choice of any sort hope of doing something they would rather not. And this choice even includes thinking about it, or considering oneself implicated as a human being. They can’t do it. American society can not as a whole take responsibility or be just enough human to be alive. Instead, they’ll just tell us that 2 degrees of warming is great, and not to be angry about the prospect of vanishing coral reefs or tens of thousands of murdered Palestinian kids and then going back to getting hysterical about protestors or pronouns or some soulless shit.

    3
  12. @steve222:

    I think Israel’s decision to align with the Republican party has made it difficult for Dems.

    I don’t think you can fairly distinguish between Republicans and Democrats and not distinguish between the current Likud-led Government and the Opposition.

    Either Israel aligned with the US or Bibi/Likud aligned with Trump/GOP.

  13. Michael Reynolds Avatar
    Michael Reynolds

    @Modulo Myself:
    You’e going to need to figure out what term trumps ‘genocide,’ because there is a non-zero chance that Israel may actually pull that trigger. Gaza’s water comes from failing and easily eliminated desalination plants, water piped in from Israel, and brackish ground water that requires heavy treatment. Life in Gaza is hanging by a thread.

    Israel is holding Gaza hostage. What do you think the Israelis would do if they decided they were truly isolated? You’ve decided they’re monsters, so what do you think the monsters will do if they decide they have nothing to lose? Surrender? The people who grew up on stories of Masada?

    You think this is as bad as it can get, don’t you? It can get so much worse.

    Tell me your solution. Do you think the US can simply insist that the Israelis agree to a Palestinian state? Do you think the 500,000 heavily-armed religious fanatics in the settlements will peacefully decamp to Tel Aviv? Do you picture the IDF forcing them out at gunpoint? Do you think there’s enough left of the West Bank to be a state and some magic new Palestinian government will accept a solution that leaves the Jews with all the good land and all the water? Do you think Fatah and Hamas will clasp hands and agree to get along with the Settlers? I mean, once they fight their own civil war? Like when everyone’s dead?

    You want to know what happens if a Palestinian State were declared? A three-way civil war, Hamas killing Fatah killing settlers. Once that kicks off who do you think wins? Maybe the group with the tanks? Jordan will close their border, sit back and watch, just like Egypt is doing now. You don’t get it. You actually think there’s some kumbaya solution to this, don’t you? If only Chuck Schumer would tell Bibi. . . Christ.

    Like I said, if only we/they would just do X.

    1
  14. @Michael Reynolds:

    Israel seems determined to close off all possible solutions other than the ones where it pushes all of the Palestinians out of the post-1967 Israel, which is nothing but a monstrous violation of the Palestinians’ human rights. Members of the Netanyahu government have said it is their goal, and Trump’s plan for Gaza is basically the same.

    If Israel’s course does not change radically, within a very few years, Israel will be regarded in the same manner around the world as South Africa was in the 1980’s. And yet, you are calling for the people who have been proposing solutions for decades to come up with new ones, rather than to push the people who have done so much to prevent any solutions from being workable to change or be voted out of office.

    Sorry, but it doesn’t work that way. There is nothing the rest of us can do to save Israel when Israel does not want to save itself.

    7
  15. @Moosebreath:

    Israel seems determined to close off all possible solutions other than the ones where it pushes all of the Palestinians out of the post-1967 Israel

    This is not a solution because once Gaza and the West Bank are absorbed, there is nowhere else for Palestinians to go…except either into Israel proper or into concentration camps and mass graves.

    The two-state solution is official US policy — at least for Clinton-Obama style Dems still dominant intraparty no matter what Manhattan, Mamdani, and the New York Slimes say — until our MidEast allies have a viable alternative plan, which they do not.

    That is, unless the alt solution is a Final Solution and Holy War killing millions — a war Israel would likely win even without the US govt backing they won’t have anymore in 25 years as elder millennials enter retirement. Or, alternatively, to absorb Palestinians into Israel, just with no citizenship. Since Palestinians and Israelis refuse to live side-by-side equally under one government, these the available alternatives to a two-state solution.

    Of course, Israelis, Palestinians, and their warring backers will not admit that, because then they’d have to stop playing victim when accused of genocide, warmongering, antisemitism, Islamophobia, and/or apartheid.

    Frankly, I think the rise in “anti-Israel” sentiment would be more accurately captured as exasperated indifference if pollsters asked the right questions. I think Americans are starting to wonder what any of this has to do with us, why this issue should take precedence over our mid quality of life and lack of affordable modernized housing /transit/ Healthcare, and why we and our presidents are required to take blows intervening in an endless bar fight between two blackout drunks. I learned along time ago to just pay my tab and leave; I can be friends with an alcoholic but I’m not going to jail or the hospital for you bro. You’re on your own there, I have my own troubles.

    6
  16. Michael Reynolds Avatar
    Michael Reynolds

    @Moosebreath:

    And yet, you are calling for the people who have been proposing solutions for decades to come up with new ones,

    No, I’m saying there is no solution. There is no way to square this circle. The closest thing to a solution in Gaza would be for Hamas to surrender en masse. Then we might get a year or two of relative peace before it all starts up again.

    You’re worried about apartheid? I think apartheid is one of the better outcomes. I’m worried about the Turk solution for the Armenians, where they marched them at gunpoint into the desert and let a million or so die there. Tomorrow is July 1, and if Israel decided on it, by July 14 the Gaza death toll would be in the 90% range. The whole world would be outraged. Outraged, I say! And then the outrage would fade as outrages do, and economic and strategic interests would come into play, and Israel would no longer have to worry about Gaza. But of course no one would play with them – just like no one does business with the Turks. Or the Chinese.

    @DK:

    Frankly, I think the rise in “anti-Israel” sentiment would be more accurately captured as exasperated indifference if pollsters asked the right questions.

    Indeed. Americans who aren’t Christian nuts longing for armageddon, or Jewish nuts longing for Greater Israel, would care as much about Israel and Palestine as they do the factions in Sudan, where an actual all-in racial/religious genocide is under way with help from our good friends the Emiratis, among others. (I could have sworn George Clooney solved that kerfuffle a few years ago. Guess not.) And that’s not even the Big One, because neighboring Ethiopia is getting ready to kick off and if that civil war turns into hot war with Egypt we’ll have an absolute nightmare that will make Gaza look like a bar fight.

  17. Modulo Myself Avatar
    Modulo Myself

    @Michael Reynolds:

    I didn’t say anything about solutions. I said: nihilism. And yes, that is unpleasant. It’s weak and false; it seems to come from ignorance and cowardice. And the people who espouse it in public are offputtting and charmless, which are two great political combinations.