Our necessary but flawed politics of foreign policy

We don't have to leave foreign policy at the water's edge, but we are drowning in partisanship

Photo by Harold Mendoza on Unsplash

The popular catchphrase "politics stops at the water's edge" symbolized a time when foreign policy transcended partisan bickering and united Americans around common values and national interests. Today it seems like foreign policy has taken a dive into the deep end of partisanship, struggling to stay afloat amidst the currents of political division.

Take Israel and Ukraine, for example—two topics that, in theory, should rally America under a single banner of foreign policy righteousness. Instead, they've become litmus tests for a new kind of partisanship that makes the Game of Thrones look like a minor family disagreement.

Prime Minister Netanyahu accelerated the shift on Israel when he addressed Congress to lobby against President Obama’s nuclear deal with Iran in 2015. A year later, President Obama upped the ante with U.S. support for a UN Security Council resolution calling for a stop to Israeli settlement activity. Secretary of State Mike Pompeo's unprecedented address at the 2016 Republican National Convention from a hotel rooftop in Jerusalem touting President Trump’s Mideast accomplishments turned what little bipartisan support for Israel remained into a partisan blood sport.

Now the war in Gaza has become intertwined with domestic politics and a competition between both parties to position themselves as the stronger ally Israel while grappling with differing views and competing agendas on how to approach the conflict.

Minority Leader Chuck Schumer’s speech criticizing Netanyahu and calling for new elections is a nod to Democratic outrage about civilian suffering in Gaza, framed within overarching support and “tough love” for Israel. Conversely, Johnson's move to invite Netanyahu to address Congress is a public display of support for Israel meshed with a desire to embrace a leader who has become a polarizing figure in America. Trump’s comments that Jewish Americans support for Democrats was being disloyal to their faith was a cynical, and frankly anti-Semitic, effort to capitalize on tensions within the Jewish community.

In the most recent issue of Foriegn Affairs, Elizabeth Saunders writes that history shows foreign policy has oscillated between periods of bipartisan unity and divisive partisanship. From the early republic's debates over intervention in revolutionary France to the Cold War's moments of unity and subsequent discord, America's approach to global engagement has been anything but static. Even during the so-called "golden age" of bipartisanship in the Cold War, disagreements and intra-party divisions were present, debunking any myths of a bygone era of political harmony. But she points out, these debates should be productive.

“Americans cannot change, and thus should not lament, the fact that their leaders look beyond the water’s edge through a political lens. But they should expect the politics of foreign policy to be healthy, and today, the core elements of a hardy foreign policy are either missing or endangered. The United States has fewer and fewer debates that are shaped by good information and expertise. Both elected and unelected officials lack incentives to take appropriate risks in the name of the wider national interest, or even to develop the policy expertise and political power essential to unearthing and acting on good information.”

That’s why in today’s kaleidoscope of crises, the specter of a fragmented America casts a long shadow.

Partisan fault lines on Ukraine and Russia could have broad implications for U.S. foreign policy. Consider the saga of the Senate's $95 billion supplemental spending package for Israel, Ukraine, Taiwan, and other friendly Indo-Pacific countries, as well as Palestinians in Gaza—a bill that, in a less polarized era, might have sailed through Congress. Instead, it faced the choppy waters of GOP skepticism.

Yet, 22 Republican senators broke ranks to join their Democratic colleagues, navigating its passage through the Senate. Even though the House has still failed to pass the legislation, it's a tale of bipartisan cooperation that, while rare these days, offers a glimmer of hope that harkens back to the spirit of consensus that once drove American diplomacy.

On issues such as the necessity of NATO and the imperatives of trade policy, Democrats and Republicans have also found common ground, recognizing the paramount importance of these issues to U.S. national security and economic prosperity.

The TikTok ban’s broad bipartisan support in the House against the backdrop of Trump's unexpected criticism, along with other legislative efforts aimed at combating China's rise, illustrates that, when push comes to shove, Congress can indeed unite over a shared recognition of threats and the need to safeguard national interests.

This month’s the Director of National Intelligence annual report about global threats and subsequent hearings have once again laid bare the world’s woes and brought to the forefront the critical issues facing the United States on the international stage. On Capitol Hill, Director of National Intelligence Avril Haines, CIA Director William Burns, and CIA Director highlighted a world teetering on the edge.

Today, as the U.S. faces strategic challenges from China and Russia's aggression, and evolving security threats - from cyberspace and space weaponization to disinformation campaigns, and global health crises - there could be room for bipartisan initiatives aimed at reshaping the fractured international order back in line with American interests and values.

I’m not talking about your grandparents' bipartisanship, where the water's edge was a magical line that turned political foes into foreign policy frenemies. No, we need a new breed, where cooperation comes not from shared visions of America's role in the world, but from a shared concern over who's gaining on us while we bicker among ourselves.

This is where the realpolitik of U.S. foreign policy meets the folksy wisdom of Middle America—a place where pragmatism can trump ideology. If there's one thing that can and should still unite a divided Congress, it's the sight of China in the rearview mirror, gaining speed with every passing moment.

History teaches us that bipartisanship in foreign policy, while elusive, does not have to be a relic of the past. The dynamic nature of U.S. politics, with its capacity for debate and disagreement, has until recently been a source of strength, allowing for course corrections and innovations that have bolstered American leadership on the global stage. Leaving foreign policy at the water’s edge is a recognition that in order to prioritize our national security interests, drowning in partisanship is a luxury we can't afford.