Foreign Policy Dividing Our Parties
Middle East policy doesn't fit our domestic sorting.
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.
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.
@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.
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.
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.