Ethan New
Published 19 March 2024
Change is often not seen as an asset for an incumbent President. Both domestically and internationally, a sense of continuity, a sense of what the President has accomplished during their entire term as President is a more fair report card for the public to weigh in on but quite often, election-year surprises weigh the scales disproportionately to the changes happening currently. The US is providing significant aid in two wars which are both becoming less popular to keep on the books. Republicans are increasingly against the war in Ukraine while Gen Z (in which a plurality identifies as Democrat) is increasingly anti-Zionist and against funding for Israel in their ongoing war with Hamas.
Precedent has given us two explanations as to why President Biden will not contract his current foreign policy. First, the idea that “You Don’t Stop a War Before an Election” is not a new phenomenon. Unless you specifically campaign on ending a particular conflict, the reality is since Vietnam, war has been proven to help the individual who has the power to wage it.
The second precedent that points us not just to the absence of dissolution of conflict but rather its escalation is the 1997 film Wag the Dog. Houthi Attacks on the Red Sea primarily affect Euro-Asian trade but the United States is primarily leading airstrikes on the rebels. Why? Wrapping oneself in the flag has tremendous political outcomes when done at a strategic time. One of the clearest examples is the bump in approval that the younger Bush received after the 2003 invasion of Iraq. President Biden has already seen benefits from an involuntary dog wag after the 2022 Russian Invasion of Ukraine where his approval rating rose five points in the initial aftermath.
The combination of not wanting to stop a war before an election and the approval bump when the American public looks outward at its adversaries instead of inward tells us that the US will continue to remain consistent in its funding until at least after the election. Although there is a decline in enthusiasm for providing Ukraine with financial support from both parties, the Biden administration will hold steady in its support no matter how much pressure from House Republicans is present. On the Israeli front, a withdrawal of military support to the IDF will seemingly cause the same drop in approval as withdrawing from Afghanistan did just two and a half years ago.
In reelection years, American Foreign Policy is sentenced to purgatory. The behavior and perception of previous administrations regarding international aptitude stagnates around this time of the election cycle.
From this, we can predict that both Ukrainian aid as well as support for Israel in its current capacity will at a minimum stay constant. If Iran continues to wag America’s tail and its allies, precedent also tells us that a rally around the flag will be a boost in polling for President Biden if the US decides to engage further in the region. As the general election still seems to be a tossup between the 2020 rematch, history tells us that the slight boost that Biden may need to win another term lies not within his campaign, but rather in his position as commander-in-chief.
The thin balance of power between the US-NATO perspective on Russia and US-UN relationships concerning the Gaza Strip is being tested in this election year. As November approaches, allies and adversaries of the US alike are watching the Biden administration's moves, gauging how election-year pressures might influence U.S. commitments abroad. In reality, this election holds more sway over both ongoing wars than either the UN or NATO consensus. Although not the superpower of the 1950s anymore, the United States still has both an official and unofficial veto on the world stage. President Zelenskyy and Prime Minister Netanyahu should not take the history of US foreign policy when an incumbent is up for election lightly because when Inauguration Day comes around in less than a year, they both know there is a reality that American money may dry up.
Understanding the lessons of history will either make or break the balance of power between countries that have a vested interest in the continuity of US funding. Whether they play to these advantages is yet to be seen and might be the difference between victory and defeat.
Opmerkingen