Ballots, Bullets, and Bargains: American Foreign Policy and Presidential Elections

The four-year presidential election cycle affects American foreign policy considerably, but not conclusively, according to this intriguing political survey from Amacost (Friends or Rivals?). To curry favor with Jewish voters in key states, Harry Truman recognized Israel 11 minutes after it proclaimed its statehood in 1948, against his most senior advisors’ counsel. Lyndon Johnson delayed any controversial initiatives in Vietnam until after the 1964 elections. An upcoming election may be a strong incentive to complete diplomatic negotiations, or foreign parties may stall in hopes of getting a better deal with the next administration. Unforeseen events overseas may give an incumbent President a political boost—the Berlin blockade for Truman, the Suez crisis for Dwight Eisenhower—but the Iranian hostage crisis doomed Jimmy Carter’s chances of re-election, as the 1991 Gulf War did to George H.W. Bush’s. Amacost proposes that the greatest danger of foreign policy course corrections comes immediately after elections, when new presidents often feel pressure to make a political splash: an obvious example is John F. Kennedy and the Bay of Pigs fiasco. Beyond that, though the presidential election cycle may have some adverse effects on foreign policy, there is a remarkable degree of continuity. As this fascinating study concludes, elections “decide who gets the right to define our national interests, but the interests themselves are rather durable.” (Aug.)